  |
||||||||
|
||||||||
User login
Get Email Alerts!
Recent comments
- Please, Cartoon God, don't
2 days 9 hours ago - 401k accounts exist to prop
3 days 13 hours ago - And why do you think they
3 days 15 hours ago - If you're going through the
3 days 16 hours ago - Yes, I'm in favor of keeping
3 days 18 hours ago - So your perfectly alright
4 days 14 hours ago - Available data is sketchy,
4 days 17 hours ago - Hitler believed in using
4 days 19 hours ago - Powerful message, Mr. Fiore.
5 days 5 hours ago - This is one of those times
6 days 15 hours ago
Sponsored ad
News
- San Quentin inmate admits killing fellow prisoner
- Prison for DUI crash while arguing over car radio
- No jail for mom whose kids died alone in fire
- Missing man's capsized boat found off Pillar Point
- 2 men killed in separate Oakland shootings
- The Saturday Profile: Sergei Kolesnikov Aims to Expose Corruption of Putin Era
- Raymond Kelly Voices Concern on Fatal Police Shooting in Bronx
Do Something!
Comments
Net Domestic Profits earned
Net Domestic Profits earned by U.S corporations since the fourth quarter of 2008: $609,000,000,000
Net Decrease since then in the amount these corporations spent on wages and benefits: -$171,000,000,000
But lets keep pretending hard working Americans are suffering right now because Barak Obama is a communist, Muslim Nazi... and that a man who makes a million a year should continue to be taxed just as much as a man who makes 80k a year... because higher taxes for the wealthy and government services like free health care are fiendish ploys to destroy America... as the flaming, feces-stained ruins of Canada suggest.
Wake the hell up.
What world do you live in
What world do you live in where a man making 80K is taxed the same as a man earning 100K. Do you understand our tax code, or math.
Bush's tax cuts were
Bush's tax cuts were non-existent. What happened was the recession began to form under Clinton in his final months and then The Democrats stalled the tax cuts. This caused companies to invest less and freeze hiring. When The tax cuts started, Democrats on state and local levels raised taxes and that made things worse in Blue states. Only in places like Texas and so on were the tax cuts felt and did the people benefit.
Also Papa Bush Raised taxes in the middle of his presidency and THAT is why we had a recession in 1990.
The jobs that Bush gave us
The jobs that Bush gave us in place were low wage jobs with little or no benefits. In reality it was a step backwards.
Those states you talk about have jobs that pay poverty wages. The minimum wage is low and companies pay few benefits. It does no good to have a job and then have nothing left over.
Horsecrap. It does not take
Horsecrap. It does not take 8 years for a recession to form, not to mention that there was an awful lot of prosperity everywhere for it to have been a recession forming as Clinton went out. How about you just accept that the Republicans, Congressional and Presidential alike, managed to ruin it all in a very short frame of time? The truth will set you free.
8 years? Hardly. That
8 years? Hardly. That prosperity came about from Fiscal conservatives in congress and the senate. But then Clinton managed to squeeze through several socialist mandates such as environmental regulations that hurt business, as well as an ergonomics bill that not only harmed small business but home self employed people as well. Then in 1996 expanding the Community reinvestment act which forced banks to give free loans to slackers who couldnt pay it off, and worst of all, the Nafta agreement which sent our jobs overseas. That and he borrowed heavily from China. Clinton's final year saw jobs shrinking in manufacturing. A friend of mine's sister who worked in LA at the time noted that the Temp services were drying up fast in Summer of 2000.
Bush inheirited an economy on the brink of collapse. A collapse that was the result of the heavy foot of government. it wasn't until the tax cuts took effect in 2003 that things got better. But It only got better in States that still had capitalism
You can call this the Clinton Manufacturing Recession. On top of that we have a war. THIS IS YOUR LEGACY BUBBA!
Just curious if it helps a
Just curious if it helps a point of view to label an
ex-president Bubba, then use the term disparaginly? "Bubba's" Legacy was a record surplus" Tell us about the Bush balance when he left office? Yeah yeah....all the fault of congressional liberals I am sure! They were lame ducks a good part of the time. Furthermore, last I looked, every spending bill must have the John Henry of the sitting President to become law. President Obama started working on this financial crises before he even took office, remember? Where was the one who slept through the warning signs? Also, Do not twist this and try to say that the Democrats are more responsible for the failed reality of deregulation. Duh, it is a plank in the conservatives platform and always has been! With "free" market capitalism, there is only one reason that one entity
in a financial transaction will unfairly take advantage of another entity, and it is this: BECAUSE THEY CAN! If you aint noticed this, you are on another planet just visiting Earth!
there is on
That surplus we had was the
That surplus we had was the legacy of the GOP congress and Senate not to mention Reaganomics.
With "free" market capitalism, there is only one reason that one entity
in a financial transaction will unfairly take advantage of another entity, and it is this: BECAUSE THEY CAN!
Meanwhile, with statism and with the BIG government in charge there they can take advantage of all of us, discriminate, rip us off, take away everything from us. WHY? BECAUSE THEY CAN!
So all good that happened
So all good that happened during President Clintons
term is due to the Republicans, and all that is bad was
Clinton administrations fault. You are such hypocrites, and I am forever baffled as to why (assuming you are ordinary), ordinary citizens would form opinions contrary to their own self-interests. Man, the brainwash runs deep! Do you think that kissing up to the haves, will dribble more down if you kiss passionately enough? That very term of Reagan and his
wonderful "trickle down" (his words not mine) steams me to know end! Easy for the haves to use that term, heh?. He also said, "what does it matter if we send jobs overseas, as long as the cost of goods goes down, thereby benefitting everyone?" Well, now we are seeing how it matters when you mistreat your own countrymen in this way (it comes back to YOU, sooner or later). The added benefit of buying trinkets cars and electronics for less, because our corporations sent production means overseas, has come home to roost. Of course, Ronald Reagan did not have to worry about losing HIS income because jobs were sent overseas. Incidentally Ronnie's 1982 recession was the worst in my memory, next to
the current one. This deflation and sucking the money supply dry, orchestrated by right-wing interests, is treasonous and criminal, and I hate to sound like a tea bagger, but its time to oil our guns. Jefferson said so himself! Hey, if they make it so you cannot pay your bills, you might as well quit paying them now. As a society, perhaps that is what we need to do to get these ...tards to pay attention; believe me, the ellipses does not stand for lib, rather a word that begins with b.
That is NOT what I meant.
That is NOT what I meant. Certainly Reagan did some stupid things like allow outsourcing and then rampant spending on the military. Bush also did wrong things like increase both military AND social spending 3 times that of Clinton. Not to mention allowing the 2006 congress to pass the minimum wage hike and the clean energy bill amongst other things that lead to the recession. The moral to the story is don't depend entirely on your government. You do so you end up with more problems than already created.
Also During Clinton's first term he tried to cook the books on how much unemployment levels really were by using a formula like the One Ron Reagan tried to use to conceal the true level of unemployment.
You must enjoy rewriting
You must enjoy rewriting history. It was Dubya that borrowed from China, borrowed to keep his wars off the books so that he wouldn't be called on it. Clinton left a surplus. Historical fact. What did Dubya do with it? Oh yeah, wasted it.
Always with the "forcing banks to loan to deadbeats"; it's like you've got talking-points being fed to you. Read the act, why don't you. It stopped discrimination on unrelated criteria; the banks CHOSE to give those loans, and then buy insurance so that they got paid when they defaulted (as they knew they would), so that they got the insurance money AND the property AND whatever the people had! It was a no-lose situation for them, especially since DUBYA came through with TARP! Again, real history, not your pretend fantasy world.
The "improvement" of 2003 and on was fake money, produced out of trash investments (you know, those "we-know-they're-gonna-default,-we-planned-it-that-way" loans?) being sold back and forth between the financial giants for ever-increasing amounts, artificially inflating profits that only existed on paper. Then, when the bluff got called, the walls came tumbling down, and we started on the Republican "bad-parent" road: when their policies work, they take the credit, and when they don't, they shift the blame. You really need to work on that part though, or get better at brainwashing people into forgetting what actually happened.
Now, for your homework, I want you to come back with actual citations of the parts of the CRA that FORCE banks to give bad loans; it's so often quoted, but for some reason, you people never want to prove it. I wonder if it's because you know you can't...
Liberals are the ones
Liberals are the ones rewriting history trying to cover up for why their ideologies fail everytime.
you want proof? Here's proof http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/
In this article it explains how Barack Obama and Acorn forced Citibank to give out bad loans to these same deadbeats that are to blame for dragging down our economy with their programs that dont work and only help people to be lazy.
Also examine this article here http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html
Explains in detail how militant liberals like ACORN are responsible for the meltdown and forcing banks to give these lazy bums loans.
See what happens when the government is in charge? what a long way we've come since 1776, DOWNHILL!
Neocon smear sites don't
Neocon smear sites don't count as proof, thanks for playing. Here's a guidepoint: if it has nothing but points AGAINST something or someone, it's probably biased. But you don't care, now do you.
In other words according to
In other words according to you, the truth is smear tactics and bias. As opposed to what you will find on liberal sites like the Young Turkeys or media blathers?
Denial aint just a river in Egypt.
http://www.snopes.com/politic
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/loans.asp
So... truth, huh?
Dude, that site there talks
Dude, that site there talks about Obama being Kenyan still; it kills their credibility.
So just because one of the
So just because one of the sites he brought up suggests Obama might not be a fully naturalized citizen that means everything it says is wrong.
Then by your logic, Mark Fiore by parroting the lie that America's 2nd amendment is to blame for Mexico's drug wars, a lie which have been proven totally false BTW that means everything else is to be discarded. And lets not forget the idea that the Tea party is for no government which it is not its for small government or the idea that Obama's promise about the surplus was kept ETC.
I wouldn't send you to
I wouldn't send you to DailyKOS for unbiased facts; you should do the same favor. And that's not truth that they're peddling, bub, just FYI>
The problem is that people
The problem is that people still believe that they actually deserve every cent that hits their pocket. There is a web of social, political and economic structures that enable some and disable others. The really profound and powerful fairy tale is the notion that rich people deserve their wealth and poor people deserve their poverty. As long as that myth remains as an operational belief of the masses we will have poor and taxes.
If this is a fairtale, then
If this is a fairtale, then why are low tax states like New Hampshire Nebraska, Texas, Colorado ET AL have more jobs and allow the working poor to keep and save more of what they earn as opposed to taxing states like Pennsylvania, Mass, Michigan, Maine and Rhdoe Island where unemployment is rampant, and the poor have to work twice as hard and still cant save money? Even in the great recession low tax states fair far better than liberal states. Why is that then if this is a fairytale? Im from Maine and I work in NH so I should know.
Well those states dont have
Well those states dont have very many paying jobs neither services for the poor. Also, the reason companies do business there is to avoid paying their share of the tax burden. Its just like outsourcing to the 3rd world in this case right into our own backyard in redneckistan.
Redneckistan? No the reason
Redneckistan? No the reason people do business there is because the government isnt squeezing the fruits of their labor and making it impossible for them to do business. liberal states like Maine and massachusetts dont pay very well either especially since taxes and regulations have made it expensive! Not only that these states have payroll taxes. EVEN ThE POOREST OF THE POOR PAY UP THEIR NOSES! How do you live if you make 230$ a week and then the government rips money right out of that and leaves you with 190$? YOU CANT! This is why socialsim fails! They dont stop with ripping off the wealthy they go after the poor! Just like when the USSR went after the Kulaks.
Bull this is so twisted it
Bull this is so twisted it went full circle! I worked for H and R and people makeing $230 a week generally have a NEGATIVE federal tax burden> do NOT construe this to mean I begrudge that structure, at least the poor can have a level of dignity including a bite to eat and stay at a homeless shelter that way. Talk about twisted, it seems somewhat like we have found a conservative arguing the liberals point, and the liberal arguing the other. Geesh, what next, huh. You LIE LIE LIE about the poor paying high taxes. The issue is MUCH MUCH more in that the super rich can afford to cut loose with more tax money, and
quit trying to strangle the middle class into thinking the liberal caused this mess! Next, you will tell me those fine bankers and financial people voted for a democrat. Watch Fiori's cuddly bear if you do not believe me! The truth will set us free! The conservative strangulation of the money supply will not. You nuts go to the extremes of the earth to bad mouth socialism...just like "trotsky got hit in the head with an axe or the communists doing ------- to Kurka or who the hell bizarre else you can come up with to badmouth the word socialism. Did you even watch Fiori's How to speak, Teabag? Socialism is a better and more Christian thing by FAR than is a bunch of greed inspired co.....ers trickling down poverty to all but themselves. I cannot believe how severely you guys are uneducated about socialism...it has NEVER been given a chance to work unimpeeded by the likes of your brainwashed types. For example, most of you geniuses think National Socialism was a form of socialism...IT WAS RIGHT WING EXTREMISM, ASK ANYONE WHO HAS HONESTLY LOOKED INTO IT! Please for the sake of our country start asking some simple questions instead of assuming your brainwashed notions are gospel.many of the most basic are hog wash!
Ho Hum, the benefits of
Ho Hum, the benefits of Public education (Brainwashing)
I worked for H and R and people makeing $230 a week generally have a NEGATIVE federal tax burden
You forgot payroll taxes, Taking money right out of the weekly paychecks of the working poor, not to mention sales taxes, which really hurt the poor, (GEEEEEEEE Now we can see why theres so much poverty in America eh?) Then theres the fact that the producers will pass the buck to consumers by raising prices.
do NOT construe this to mean I begrudge that structure, at least the poor can have a level of dignity including a bite to eat and stay at a homeless shelter that way.
No, if it were up to Obama and the Dems, everyone from Prince to Pauper would be paying nearly all that they earn in taxes. After all, we need to spread the wealth and fund all those programs for single moms and their litters. And BTW, those homeless shelters dont let you stay for very long. In Bangor where I am from, they let you stay day to day and in lewiston its 60 days. Portland has no limit to how long you stay but they tend to run out of beds and you wont be able to work at your job very well if you have to sleep outside or walk around till dawn all because you can't afford your own place. This is the case in Democrap states that reject capitalism and free markets.
Talk about twisted, it seems somewhat like we have found a conservative arguing the liberals point, and the liberal arguing the other. Geesh, what next, huh. You LIE LIE LIE about the poor paying high taxes.
If you don't believe me go live in Maine, try and Get a job at McDs (If possible) And see if Im lying.
the super rich can afford to cut loose with more tax money,
Not if you tax them 80% 90% and they'll just find loopholes hedgefunds or pass the cost to consumers. In New York 60 to 70% of expenses come from taxes. This is why New York has one of the worst economies in the nation. I know this because I have friends and relatives who live there.
quit trying to strangle the middle class into thinking the liberal caused this mess!
They DID cause this mess by taxing and spending us to death. Just look at how much worse off we are ever since Democrats took over congress in 2006.
The truth will set us free! The conservative strangulation of the money supply will not.
Liberals by taxing away are strangling the money supply. Just ask the working poor who have to pay what little they earn in payroll taxes, gasoline, oil, food, especially with regresive taxes.
You nuts go to the extremes of the earth to bad mouth socialism...just like "trotsky got hit in the head with an axe or the communists doing ------- to Kurka or who the hell bizarre else you can come up with to badmouth the word socialism.
Funny, The Russians and the Germans both considered opponents of socialism to be nuts. They used that to incarcerate dissidents. They are called Kulaks BTW. They were poor peasant landowners during the time of the tsar. When Stalin took over he confiscated their land for the farm collective, confiscated the harvest where it rotted at the train station or went to the wrong areas. The Secret police also confiscated food away from these same people creating a famine that murdered nearly 10 million people in the Ukraine. Stalin Blamed the victims and the jews for what happened. Just like a good little socialist.
I am against socialism because I have seen its results both in history and here in America. Friend of mine had his bank account confiscated by abusive relatives with the help of the government, DHHS and The state hospital in Bangor. He also lost his job and became homeless as a result and was forced to take drugs that gave him braindamage and seizures. He was also banned from leaving the state to go to a state with a better economy. (Maine is 3rd worst in the nation for jobs) and in the courts, the doctors and the relatives rationalized what they did by claiming he had Asperger's syndrome, a form of mental retardation and the criterea they used for diagnosis was that he was sexually abused at a public school and did not have a job between 2001-2003. The judge who was a dirty liberal agreed. Now he cant get a job anymore, he is in poverty and starving and none of those wonderful programs I paid for with my taxes are doing anything to help him. Lets not also forget about rampant Guardian abuse, SSI Scaming, Eminent Domain, travel bans ETC. All the result of socialism.
Did you even watch Fiori's How to speak, Teabag?
Yes, it was trite. You should watch my youtube channel for a rebutal Im doing called learn to speak liberal.
Socialism is a better and more Christian thing by FAR than is a bunch of greed inspired co.....ers trickling down poverty to all but themselves. I cannot believe how severely you guys are uneducated about socialism...
Read what I mentioned above and read my blog. You are the one who needs to learn.
...it has NEVER been given a chance to work unimpeeded by the likes of your brainwashed types.
Russia, China, Cambodia and Vietnam had a chance and they failed. We OTOH suceeded despite international attacks by Britain and other nations from without and federalists and other from within. We have created the most prosperous and free society in history. Now its winding down because of the likes of you.
most of you geniuses think National Socialism was a form of socialism...IT WAS RIGHT WING
Nope! right wing means less government. The Nazis like you support the same principles such as gun control, abortion, eugenics, big government nationalized industry, atheism ETC.
Please for the sake of our country start asking some simple questions instead of assuming your brainwashed notions are gospel.many of the most basic are hog wash!
Took the words right out of my mouth. I would suggest you do so.
Im from Texas and I'd say
Im from Texas and I'd say its worth the extra fee here and there to live in New York or whereabouts than in a right wing redneck state like Tex or Nebo.
Excellent one, Mark! You
Excellent one, Mark! You explain it so well.
What has happened in the Not Really United States and the whole world as well, but to a lesser extent, is that the system of government that all countries seem to be operating under these days, is plutocracy -- rule by the wealthy.
Forget about democracy. That exists only on paper. The people don't really rule or run anything. They're just told and convinced of the fanciful notion that they're free and don't do anything to rock the boat. Those that really run things don't want the people to do something that will ruin the racket they have going like say, oh, I don't know -- riot!
Riots are such messy affairs and that's just bad for business, doggone it. People have to be kept passive and docile and running on their little hamster wheels day after day, year after year, making stuff for the rich and doing all the manual labor that runs society.
Mark Fiore's biting irony
Mark Fiore's biting irony comes home on this one. Rather than just being satisfying, it was genuinely amusing. Thanks, Mark.
The Republicans serve the
The Republicans serve the same globalist masters as the Democrats. It's not about taxes cuts it's about global corporate interests destroying this country. Reagan was the first to blame American workers for the off shoring of American industry. Reagan said American labor can compete with dollar a day labor and gave tax cuts to move overseas? He also told us the service based economy would be good and we don't need the old jobs. A real peach I tell ya! Of course he didn't do anything but read the scrip like a good puppet.
Then there's Bush-1 following the globalist interest as Clinton, Bush-2 and Barry Sotoro in just another puppet. The real controllers aren't those TelePrompter reading hacks! Wake up before it's to late!!
Common Sense 101: It is
Common Sense 101: It is impossible to multiply wealth by dividing it.*
* NOTE: This law of "economic gravity" is non-existent in the libtard's fantasy world, where believing is seeing, and seeing is disbelieving.
"It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder." - Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850
So, you shouldn't divide
So, you shouldn't divide your money amongst several stocks, you're saying? Your point is somewhat murky...
And 1850 is just a smidge behind the times; just because a thought is old, doesn't mean it's worth anything. I mean, this is a person who probably believed that rotting meat generated maggots spontaneously and that the body's humours determined their health.
So just because a quote
So just because a quote comes from 160 years ago its obsolete? I guess based on that logic we should just scrap the bill of rights and the philosophy behind it which is much older. (free speech, free press, right to self defense and requiring warrants along with abolishing slavery are a bit old anyway.) And I guess All those other theories and principles like gravity, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill ought to be nixed anyway.
High principles are one
High principles are one thing; maundering assertions of persecution by a priviledged upper class are another entirely.
What I meant by the first
What I meant by the first statement is that it is impossible to create new wealth by redistributing existing wealth. Wealth is *not* a zero sum / fixed quantity. Thus, if one man earns a higher income, this does not necessarily imply that another man will earn less. If this were true, then how could one explain that (inflation adjusted) per capita GDP is at least 6 to 8 times greater today in the United States than it was in 1900? America's poor are considered rich in most parts of the world.
The statement by Bastiat is a universal truth, as were those inalienable rights outlined by Thomas Jefferson way back in 1776. Truth is completely independent of time, so it does not matter whether it was stated hundreds of years ago or just yesterday.
Wealth redistribution (i.e., legalized plunder) of any kind is immoral, whether it be from rich to poor (e.g., welfare) or vice versa (e.g., Wall Street bank bailouts). As Bastiat noted, "The war against ILLEGAL plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is... LEGAL plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay... If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system."
In other words, no person can morally delegate to government a right that he does not possess himself. War is acceptable only because each of us has an inalienable right to self-defense. However, this means that war must be used only as a means of self-defense. On the other hand, no one has a right to steal someone else's private property, whether it be to help himself or help a third person. Therefore, no one can morally delegate to the government the power to steal on his behalf. If you want to help your fellow man in need, use your own hard-earned money, not mine!
If you need a more contemporary quotation, consider the following point made by Walter Williams, "Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it 'income redistribution,' but that's exactly what thieves do - redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it is a sin."
And just in case you are going to invoke the straw-man argument that Williams must be "greedy," "selfish," "heartless," or "mean spirited," he also had this to say, "There are people in need of help. Charity is one of the nobler human motivations. The act of reaching into one's own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation."
Finally, consider a quote by the late Murray N. Rothbard, "The only difference between a highway robber and the government is that a highway robber does not steal your money and then patronize you by claiming he is doing it for your own good."
I know so-called "liberals" (of the modern variety, not to be confused with the true liberals of the classical variety) like to claim moral supremacy over others (i.e., because they believe they care more about the poor, the sick, and the down-trodden), but it is a fallacy to believe one is acting charitably when he is playing Lady Bountiful with the taxpayers' money (i.e, other people's money), and not his own.
By the way, I used the disparaging term, "libtard," not because I believe modern "liberals" are inherently stupid. Quite the contrary. I merely wanted to point out that it does not matter how smart you are if you don't stop to think. This is especially true of most ivory-tower intellectuals.
Moral equality (not
Moral equality (not superiority) is what this socialist (me) wants to see.
You have proven that you have saintly aspirations by qualifying your use of the libtard label; glad you did, you sure had me fooled. Also fond of your ivory-tower catch all!
That one is used to belittle people who care enough to study issues and draw conclusions as they see fit, instead of accepting the word of the brainwashed non intellectual right-wing extremists, right? What is the address of this Ivory tower? Are you saying if the truth comes from some imaginary tower, then you are insecure in your prejudices?
Perhaps we need to follow in Hitler's steps, and remove those in higher academics because they might be a threat to our saintly cause? The red white and blue right winger strikes again!
"What I meant by the first
"What I meant by the first statement is that it is impossible to create new wealth by redistributing existing wealth."
False. See the principle of marginally diminishing returns and then the multiplier effect.
As they used to say during
As they used to say during the waning days of the Soviet Union, "Comrades, while it is true that our economy is moribund, look at the bright side, at least we get to share our poverty equally."
Neo-Keynesian economics is nothing more than a lame excuse for statists on the left to increase the size and scope of government. If there was such a thing as a "multiplier effect," then reductio ad absurdum, shouldn't the government spend as much money as it possibly can? In that case, we could grow GDP infinitely, and in our liberal fantasy world, "free lunches" would exist.
Oh sh--, my bad, I forgot to mention that government can't spend a dollar unless it has first either: a) taxed that dollar away from the private sector, thus driving down consumption (C) and investment (I); b) borrowed that dollar from the private sector, driving down consumption (C) and investment (I); and/or printed that dollar out of thin air, thus destroying the value of all dollars via inflation. Therefore, when government spending (G) increases in that infamous Keynesian equation, GPD = C + I + G + (Exports – Imports), it "crowds out" private consumption (C) and private investment (I).
Q.E.D., there is no such thing as a "free lunch" in the real world!
Making matters worse, government spending (G) invariably leads to boondoggle spending (e.g., digging ditches and filling them back up). This is hardly a formula for increasing our standard of living. Just think of all those welfare transfer payments (e.g., teachers' union bail-outs and unemployment checks) made recently, not to mention those high-speed railways to nowhere and so-called green-tech "investments."
Earlier this year, Our Dear Leader Maobama announced that he was going to "invest" $2B of our hard-earned tax-dollars in two solar tech companies and this would create 1,600 new jobs. Do the math libtards! This works out to $1.25 million spent per new job created, and this doesn't even include all the jobs which will be lost in the private sector when private consumption (C) and private investment (I) is diverted to Washington, D.C.
I think you need to leave
I think you need to leave your QED to the Pythagorans and take some courses in logic. I am an out of control teenager who inherited 100 million tax-sheltered bucks and I do not plan to spend a dollar of my own making on lunch? Extreme,
but you should easily see why QED doesn't apply here. Apparently you are of that priveleged class who are the sole "earners" of their own substance. Every one else is
inherently less worthy, right, genius? And for the record, logically, one needs a consensus on his major premise long before he can claim a QED on his conclusion!
What he just said was pure
What he just said was pure logic. It shows why keynsianism fails flat. You cant put money into the economy without taking it out first and therby causing job loss.
I am an out of control teenager who inherited 100 million tax-sheltered bucks and I do not plan to spend a dollar of my own making on lunch
That money was probably already taxed to begin with. He can use it anyway he wants to its his. Keep your greedy paws off.
Apparently you are of that priveleged class who are the sole "earners" of their own substance. Every one else is
inherently less worthy, right, genius?
I guess thats why more and more poor people are becoming libertarian.
Hey, how about we get rid of
Hey, how about we get rid of the biggest beneficiaries of taxation, the people getting the most from the government? All those defense contracts, poof! Then we won't need your money! Until then, you're still gonna need to chip in. If you think that the amount that is being "redistributed" by other means holds even a candle to the level of overpayment and waste going on with respect to "defense" spending, then you need to do some more modern reading. All of the things that you're objecting to could be cut, and your tax bill MIGHT go down perhaps 2%, and that's a generous estimate.
Oh, and modern conservatives are pretty dumb as well; they actually believe that the Republican party is any kind of conservative, that the Good Old Days had less taxation, and that everything would be fine and peachy if the government got out of the way (except for social security, and Medicare, and bloated defense spending, etc.) and let the corporations do exactly as they like. You know, we tried that once or twice... the last experiment in that direction ended in early November 2008. How's that working out for you? Still trying to blame the black guy?
The audio on many computers
The audio on many computers is poor. Combine that with hearing impairment and often your story line is hard to understand. How about adding a subtitle option?
Once upon a time America was
Once upon a time America was the wealthiest most powerful nation on earth. Everyone looked to God and the church controlled social welfare for the poor and the needy. Everyone pulled their own weight and the private sector was free to create business without hinderance by the government. Since taxes were low, everyone got to keep the fruits of their labor. Then one day the magic liberal pixies came and sprinkled their magic Tax dust that dried up businesses and drove them to China, then with help from their friend the government giant passed legislation that regulated businesses and prevented them from creating jobs expanding and innovating to protect the gummy owls in the enchanted bird sanctuary and further convinced them by telling a fairy tale story about how progress and technology caused the earth to warm. Then all the jobs dried up and went to the magical marxist kingdom of China. And All the liberal pixies shrilled that the tax cut fairies were to blame for why socialism failed.
And all the hippies lived happily every after.
The end of America?
"Once upon a time..."
"Once upon a time..."
America became the "wealthiest most powerful nation on earth" in the post-war period from approx. 1950 to 1980. We had a growing economy & middle class from 1950 thru the 60s. In 1950 the top marginal tax rate was 84.36%. It hovered around 92% until 1963. In the 1970s, it hovered around 71%. From about 1947 until 1980, the Gross National debt declined in both real terms and as a percentage of GDP.
From there Reagan cut taxes to 70, 50, then 38.5%. The result: from 1980-2008, Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush Jr.) produced 100% of the new Federal debt, and with the collapse of our financial system under Republican control, Obama inherited a $1.2 billion deficit before he even set foot in office. Now you're complaining about letting the Bush tax cuts on the top 1/2 of one percent of taxpayers expire (going back up to 39%)? Could you be more ignorant? (No.)
http://www.bushtoll.com/2010/04/04/bush-left-obama-a-1-2-trillion-defici...
The 1950s were very very
The 1950s were very very different. The top percentiles were able to bypass a lot of those taxes through hedgefunds and loop holes. Also there was access to cheap labor at home and we didnt have outsourcing. Also This was after WW2. Europe Asia and most of the world was still struggling to recover from the war and USA was untouched so we didnt have to worry about competition. This also was ten years before Ted Kennedy passed his immigration bill which opened the flood gates for uneducated thrid worlders who would come in to take jobs away from unskilled young americans and live off the welfare state. We also didnt have a welfare state back then either so there was no drag on the economy.
Most of all America still retained some sort of judeo Christian morality. The church provided social welfare instead of the inefficient state, people were more moral crime was lower.
In this culture and this society that has cast aside common sense and Judeo Christian morals, things have changed for the worse.
Those tax hikes we had in
Those tax hikes we had in the 50s and 60s are the reason we had the slump in the 70s and 80s. The effect of those taxes aren't felt right away but they eventually hit in the long run. Reagan's tax cuts were the reason we had a boom in the 90s but with help from the Bolshevik media Clinton stole credit for it. The recession from the last decade came from Clinton's tax policies which he passed on to Bush.
Horsecrap. The market moves
Horsecrap. The market moves faster than that; it doesn't take 2 decades for the effect to be felt. Simply put, the well-to-do in those days actually understood their responsibilities to society, while rich people today are whiny children, claiming victimization from their giant houses with 5 cars and a boat and maids to clean up after them.
The market is actually very
The market is actually very large and takes a long time to grind to a halt.
Once there was a land of
Once there was a land of wonder where the government didn't consume half the private sector gross domestic product. Government employees there were paid for their services directly by the people who used them. It protected individual rights and ruled with the consent of the governed rather than protecting itself and shaking down everyone else using threats and coercion.
It didn't redistribute revenue taken from the productive to the politically well-connected.
In this magical land people were free to enter into voluntary contracts for labor without enormous government regulatory overhead and taxation. In this land the rights of the minority were protected by a constitution that limited the power of the government. The will of the majority couldn't be enforced against a minority whose rights were protected against it.
But that land ceased to exist about 150 years ago.
Oh, I remember that magical
Oh, I remember that magical land. Wasn't that the same place slavery was legal?
No. Only someone as dumb as
No. Only someone as dumb as you would equate being allowed to keep what you earn to slavery. What Obama and the Dems are doing now is bringing back slavery.
You do keep what you earn.
You do keep what you earn. You also pay your part to support the society that makes your success possible... or were you of the mistaken belief that you alone do everything that makes you successful?
Post new comment