[EMW150]

Originally Posted by jikelly

Really?

You really believe that Reagan's tax policies were good for the nation? Did we wind up with a massive federal budget deficit in the 80s due to his tax policies and unprecedented government defense spending?

Absolutely, You have to look at the context of the times. The Carter years had us in trouble, and we had the Soviet Union to contend with. Reagan's peace through strength strategy (Unprecedented Defense spending) in my opinion bankrupted the Soviets in the cold war. We averted WWIII and came out smelling rosey compared to where Carter left us. It's scary to think where we'd be today if we wouldn't have successfully stood down the Soviet Union.

[GT40XStang9]

Originally Posted by timeless2

Examples please.

Originally Posted by EMW150

The question is, how much worse off would we be without the tax cuts? Did we divert a recession? Possibly, we'll never know. Throughout history, cutting taxes equals more revenue to the government. Why is this so hard for libs to grasp? Reagan proved this. You can't learn from history?...

Do Tax Cuts Stimulate The Economy?

And I'll throw in this myth/fact article:

The Truth About Tax Rates and The Politics of Class Warfare

[GT40XStang9]

Originally Posted by EMW150

Absolutely, You have to look at the context of the times. The Carter years had us in trouble, and we had the Soviet Union to contend with. Reagan's peace through strength strategy (Unprecedented Defense spending) in my opinion bankrupted the Soviets in the cold war. We averted WWIII and came out smelling rosey compared to where Carter left us. It's scary to think where we'd be today if we wouldn't have successfully stood down the Soviet Union.

Agreed. He was forced to outspend the Soviets. It absolutely destroyed the oil patch.

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by EMW150

Absolutely, You have to look at the context of the times. The Carter years had us in trouble, and we had the Soviet Union to contend with. Reagan's peace through strength strategy (Unprecedented Defense spending) in my opinion bankrupted the Soviets in the cold war. We averted WWIII and came out smelling rosey compared to where Carter left us. It's scary to think where we'd be today if we wouldn't have successfully stood down the Soviet Union.

The soviets didn't help the situation by becoming bogged down in a war in Afghanistan. There is a lesson for us there that we don't want to hear.

It's always shocking to me to hear people say how great things were during te Reagan years because I remember the 80s and the economic scandals.

[Reimann]

Originally Posted by EMW150

Absolutely, You have to look at the context of the times. The Carter years had us in trouble, and we had the Soviet Union to contend with. Reagan's peace through strength strategy (Unprecedented Defense spending) in my opinion bankrupted the Soviets in the cold war. We averted WWIII and came out smelling rosey compared to where Carter left us. It's scary to think where we'd be today if we wouldn't have successfully stood down the Soviet Union.

With Putin acting like he has been we'll probably find out in a few years if Obama gets elected.

[Strype]

Originally Posted by Reimann

With Putin acting like he has been we'll probably find out in a few years if Obama gets elected.

Well first he'll tell the world what he's gonna do to stand down the Soviet Union, the amount of men/planes/tanks it will take, where they will be stationed to do so, how they're gonna go about doing it and then he'll go have coffee with Putin and make Dr. Phil a moderator as they talk about their feelings of oppression.

[dew22]

Originally Posted by bigconig

Thia is the real teller here. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy were supposed to grow the economy and create jobs. They did neither. Add to that the drunken spending of the GOP for the last 8 years and you have the crap economy we got now.

You have no idea if the cuts had a negative effect on the economy or not & you conveniently omit the obvious events that had a profound effect on our economy far greater than any policy decision made by GWB. Remember the major bankruptcies, already slowing & weakening economy, 9/11?

I’ll agree with you on the spending, however your assertion that the GOP spent it all and the Dems. had nothing or little to do with it is laughable.

Originally Posted by bigconig

The reality is with all the debt the country has stacked up revenues have to be increased

If you think raising taxes generates more revenue or doesn’t put a drag on the economy not only are you delusional but Barak Obama’s not even sure that’s a good idea.

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

"I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now," Obama said on "This Week" on ABC. "The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile."

Originally Posted by bigconig

if that means that a plumber making a 1/4 million a year has to pay a few more bucks than so be it.

I like how you picked up on th e 1/4 million tag line, being that it sounds so much higher than 250 thousand...

[jikelly]

250000 is a lot of money. It's more than enough to live on. At least around the parts of the country where I live.

[Strype]

Well yea we need a limit on how wealthy a person can be because we don't measure up and we're all jealous

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by Strype

Well yea we need a limit on how wealthy a person can be because we don't measure up and we're all jealous

But it's not a limit on wealth.

[EMW150]

Originally Posted by Strype

Well yea we need a limit on how wealthy a person can be because we don't measure up and we're all jealous

Bingo. It amazes me that people feel they are entitled to something that someone else worked for. It's unbelievably bold and ignorant.

Should clarify, this wasn't directed at you Jikelly, it's those who think it's right to raise taxes on those earning over 250,000 so it can be redistributed to those who already pay zero in taxes.

[dew22]

Originally Posted by jikelly

250000 is a lot of money. It's more than enough to live on. At least around the parts of the country where I live.

I was just pointing out the language control and how it can effect public perception.

more extreme examples = Fairness doctrine, Pro choice

1/4 million sounds better or worse than $25000

I noticed the change in the language last week..............smart actually.


Now about the 250,000 sure it’s “more than enough to live on” the difference is in the philosophy. Lets say Joe the plumber’s taxes go up 5k. I believe Joe will spend the money the Govt. wants to take from him in taxes in a far more constructive manner than the govt. will. IMO the govt. will put Joe’s 5k into some program that should only cost 500, effectively wasting 4500.00

Money isn’t our problem, spending and inefficient Govt, programs are. Do you ever get what you pay for in Govt. spending?

I’d rather him spend it in our economy than give it to uncle sam who has a long history of wasteful spending.

[poboys 94]

Originally Posted by 5.0_GT_kid

Prices had been high for just about all of Bush's term, so do you have any evidence to support that the dems were responsible for the spike in prices?

It's fraud, and greed pure and simple that has caused our economy to be near collapsed.
Regarding high gas prices-- "Just before he lost his job, he said, one of his superiors in Washington ordered him not to investigate why Shell Oil had raised its oil transportation costs. Maxwell said it jumped from 90 cents to $3 a barrel without adequate explanation. The government paid Shell to transport oil from offshore platforms."
Whistleblower: Oil watchdog agency 'cult of corruption' - CNN.com
The path to a regional currency has been excelerated under the Bush dictatorship, and the Democrats haven't done s#!t to stop it. Why? I think it has been the plan all along.--
Already, the US dollar is becoming more and more unpopular with every passing day.
And what do you think will happen to your 401K and personal savings with the introduction of an even weaker currency than the dollar? Are these normal times? Of course not. Another major US institution right now is hanging in the balance. Who would have ever believed even five years ago that General Motors would be on the edge of extinction?

“…GM's spending $3b a year on interest payments, burning through a reported $1b per month…” “After six to nine months, GM as we know it will be dead.”

General Motors Death Watch 203: GMAC May File for Bankruptcy Tomorrow | The Truth About Cars
Even the International Monetary Fund is predicting the financial meltdown to persist.

“IMF Predicts Major Global Slowdown Amid Financial Crisis” “The world economy is decelerating quickly—buffeted by an extraordinary financial shock… the IMF says in its latest World Economic Outlook (WEO).” imf.org/external/pubs, 10-8-2008

And here is where the new US currency steps in. The American people will be demanding it in a few months after this financial crisis has grown to the point where it has wiped out 90% of US savings and 401K portfolios. Source- Financial Crisis is the Birth Pains of a New Currency :: The Market Oracle :: Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting Free Website

[dew22]

Originally Posted by Strype

Well yea we need a limit on how wealthy a person can be because we don't measure up and we're all jealous

You know that's really what it comes down to, isn't it...

&

That's why it works so well as a political tool.

[poboys 94]

Originally Posted by dew22

You know that's really what it comes down to, isn't it...

&

That's why it works so well as a political tool.

We don't need a limit on wealth, we need to stop allowing the accumulation of wealth by unscrupulous and criminal means, that has f-uped the economy. The following was written in 2006--
"Deregulation is characterized in the business-friendly media as a way of lifting the burdensome restrictions on the free flow of capital. This is nonsense. Deregulation is, in fact, the removal of the laws which traditionally protect the public from the hucksters and scam-artists who create lofty-sounding investments which are nothing more than Ponzi-schemes.
By removing the safeguards to investment, the business and banking communities have created what many call “casino capitalism,” an anarchic structure with few protections that is hurling the markets toward a system-wide meltdown.
Similar problems plague the sagging real estate market. In recent years a buyer could pick up a house with no down payment, an “interest-only” loan, a low ARM, and be reasonably certain that the next year it would increase 20 to 30% in value. This allows the buyer to refinance his home, use his “presto-equity” as discretionary income, and begin the cycle all over again next year. With wages stagnating since the 1970s, the increase in home equity has been the preferred method for most Americans to “get ahead”. Housing prices have steadily increased since the 1980s and skyrocketed in the last 5 years. This has created a feeding-frenzy for low interest loans and attracted millions of speculators and (traditionally) unqualified applicants to the real estate gold rush.

It’s been a great deal for the banks, too. Mortgages make up the bulk of the banks loans in America, more than $400 billion last year alone. If it wasn’t for the steady steam of mortgages many banks would have seen negative growth in the last decade. Now that housing prices are flattening out and expected to fall (precipitously) the easy money has dried up and many over-leveraged homeowners are facing the dismal prospect of having to pay off an asset that is quickly losing its value. Economist Michael Hudson calls this phenomenon “negative equity”, that is, when the current value of the house falls beneath the amount that one has to pay on his mortgage. It is a predicament which now faces an estimated 30 million Americans who are drowning in red ink and skittering towards a life of indentured servitude."
Day of Reckoning; America’s Economic Meltdown***

[dew22]

Originally Posted by poboys 94

We don't need a limit on wealth, we need to stop allowing the accumulation of wealth by unscrupulous and criminal means, that has f-uped the economy. The following was written in 2006--
"Deregulation is characterized in the business-friendly media as a way of lifting the burdensome restrictions on the free flow of capital. This is nonsense. Deregulation is, in fact, the removal of the laws which traditionally protect the public from the hucksters and scam-artists who create lofty-sounding investments which are nothing more than Ponzi-schemes.
By removing the safeguards to investment, the business and banking communities have created what many call “casino capitalism,” an anarchic structure with few protections that is hurling the markets toward a system-wide meltdown.
Similar problems plague the sagging real estate market. In recent years a buyer could pick up a house with no down payment, an “interest-only” loan, a low ARM, and be reasonably certain that the next year it would increase 20 to 30% in value. This allows the buyer to refinance his home, use his “presto-equity” as discretionary income, and begin the cycle all over again next year. With wages stagnating since the 1970s, the increase in home equity has been the preferred method for most Americans to “get ahead”. Housing prices have steadily increased since the 1980s and skyrocketed in the last 5 years. This has created a feeding-frenzy for low interest loans and attracted millions of speculators and (traditionally) unqualified applicants to the real estate gold rush.

It’s been a great deal for the banks, too. Mortgages make up the bulk of the banks loans in America, more than $400 billion last year alone. If it wasn’t for the steady steam of mortgages many banks would have seen negative growth in the last decade. Now that housing prices are flattening out and expected to fall (precipitously) the easy money has dried up and many over-leveraged homeowners are facing the dismal prospect of having to pay off an asset that is quickly losing its value. Economist Michael Hudson calls this phenomenon “negative equity”, that is, when the current value of the house falls beneath the amount that one has to pay on his mortgage. It is a predicament which now faces an estimated 30 million Americans who are drowning in red ink and skittering towards a life of indentured servitude."
Day of Reckoning; America’s Economic Meltdown***

On the one hand the author makes the case that if we only had regulation we'd be fine but then goes on to site as an example the real-estate market debacle, a situation largely influenced by the Govt. telling banks how to conduct business.

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by poboys 94

This is nonsense. Deregulation is, in fact, the removal of the laws which traditionally protect the public from the hucksters and scam-artists who create lofty-sounding investments which are nothing more than Ponzi-schemes.
By removing the safeguards to investment, the business and banking communities have created what many call “casino capitalism,” an anarchic structure with few protections that is hurling the markets toward a system-wide meltdown.

Dang, that seems like an all to accurate assessment.

[timeless2]

Originally Posted by GT40XStang9

And I'll throw in this myth/fact article:

The Truth About Tax Rates and The Politics of Class Warfare

Thanks. This is what I was looking for:

Consider what happened in the years following each of the three times Americans enjoyed significant tax rate reductions.

*

The 1920s: The top tax rate fell from 73 percent to 25 percent, yet the rich (in those days, individuals earning $50,000 or more) went from paying 44.2 percent of the tax burden in 1921 to paying more than 78 percent in 1928. 3
*

The 1960s: After President John F. Kennedy slashed the top tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent, those making more than $50,000 annually saw their tax payments rise during the next three years by 57 percent and their share of the tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent. 4
* The 1980s: The top tax rate fell from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1988 during the Reagan years. What happened to the "rich"? The top 1 percent went from shouldering 17.6 percent of the income tax burden in 1981 to paying 27.5 percent of the total in 1988. The top 10 percent saw their share of the burden climb from 48 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. 5

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by dew22

On the one hand the author makes the case that if we only had regulation we'd be fine but then goes on to site as an example the real-estate market debacle, a situation largely influenced by the Govt. telling banks how to conduct business.

McCain:
The catalyst for this housing crisis was the Fannie and Freddie Mae that caused subprime lending situation that now caused the housing market in America to collapse.

I am convinced that, until we reverse this continued decline in home ownership and put a floor under it, and so that people have not only the hope and belief they can stay in their homes and realize the American dream, but that value will come up.

I found that statement interesting. How does he propose doing that?

[Strype]

Originally Posted by timeless2

Thanks. This is what I was looking for:

So are you saying that historically, when the rich get tax cuts they actually end up paying more in the long run?

[Therian]

Those poor millionaires. They won't be able to afford their yearly yacht purchase this year.

[poboys 94]

Originally Posted by dew22

On the one hand the author makes the case that if we only had regulation we'd be fine but then goes on to site as an example the real-estate market debacle, a situation largely influenced by the Govt. telling banks how to conduct business.

"The magnitude of the housing bubble is shocking and unprecedented. According to the Federal Reserves own figures, “The total amount of residential housing wealth in the US just about doubled between 1999 and 2006 up from $10.4 trillion to $20.4 trillion.”(Times Online) This tells us that the Fed had a clear idea of the size of the equity balloon their low interest policies were creating, but decided not to take corrective action. THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS NOT PART OF THE GOVERNMENT.

"Greenspan and THE PRIVATELY OWNED FED RESERVE played a major role in putting us in this mess by rubber-stamping the new system of precarious loans (no down payments, interest-only loans, ARMs) and perpetuating their “cheap money” policies. Greenspan admitted this a few months ago when he said that current housing increases were “unsustainable” and would have corrected long ago if not for the “the dramatic increase in the prevalence of interest-only loans…and more exotic forms of adjustable rate mortgages that enable marginally-qualified, highly leveraged borrowers to purchase homes at inflated prices.”
"Greenspan’s circuitous comments are tantamount to an admission of guilt. The fallout from the fed’s policies are bound to be widespread and devastating."
Ever since the US gov. turned over the nations ability to control it's own currency supply ( 1913) we have been slaves to the private bankers, so it goes a whole lot deeper and is more complicated then just being able to dismiss this crisis as simply "The govt. telling banks how to conduct business", OR it's the Right or the Lefts fault, even though the Gov. certainly is partially to blame for -
"Many of America’s fiscal troubles could have been mitigated by prudent management or judicious leadership, but that won’t change things now. The system is not in the control of the elected representatives and the deeply rooted problems are likely to persist until a calamitous event precipitates a fundamental change." I wish Kennedy was not killed so his plan to gradually do away with the Fed Reserve/private banking cartels could have been realized-
"President Kennedy pledged himself to what was the best for America and cared not how the greedy bankers of the Fed felt. JFK, like Lincoln in the 1860's, dared to have the U. S. Treasury issue U. S. Dollars, not Federal Reserve notes, and place them into circulation without paying interest to any bankers, just as spelled out in the U. S. Constitution.

This alarmed the owners of the Fed like a fifty point tremor on the Richter Scale. This must cease at once. The Fed bankers found themselves facing an intolerable situation, one which defied them and at the same time, one which they could not publicly complain without letting the cat out of the bag. Any complaint by the Fed would put it in a very bad light. The public would soon be aware of the gigantic scam the Fed has gotten away with since 1913. This scam allowed the Fed to avoid all income taxes and even audits."

Their response was evident at Dealy Plaza in Dallas."
Two President Who Died Defying the Rothschilds | 100777.com
The Fed Reserve is WHY an income tax was imposed on citizens in the first place, to pay off the damned interest owed to them by the Gov!
If Ron Paul were to be president and impose those same ideas, he very likely would have met the same fate.

[Strype]

Originally Posted by Strype

So are you ssaying that historically, when the rich get tax cuts they actually end up paying more in the long run?

Wait a minute Strype, I think you picked up on something Tim was saying...

So does that mean that when the RICH get TAX CUTS they end up building more businesses and employing more people and getting richer thus producing much more revenue for the United States of America?

[Strype]

Originally Posted by Strype

Wait a minute Strype, I think you picked up on something Tim was saying...

So does that mean that when the RICH get TAX CUTS they end up building more businesses and employing more people and getting richer thus producing much more revenue for the United States of America?

WHOOOOOA there Cuthbert Catcher...

According to what Tim posted, that would mean that the GDP would have skyrocketed after the Reagan/Bush Senior tax cuts- Is that what you are telling yourself?

[poboys 94]

Originally Posted by Therian

Those poor millionaires. They won't be able to afford their yearly yacht purchase this year.

You know what pisses me off is that I am in a really f-ed up situation. I can't work because my f-ing fingers are falling off, and when I need to collect money from a program I have been paying into for the last 30 years,Social Security- Im denied, but these MFers, are getting billions to pick up after a mess created by them AND the Government. If I sound bitter it's because I am. This **** has affected many people and in many different ways, if you have your health, and a job pray and give thanks everyday for your blessings, guys.