|
Post by beth on Feb 13, 2010 21:07:30 GMT
I certainly do not think taxes are the cause of the national debt, das. When you encourage people to think, you're digging your own pit. Be prepared to jump high.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Feb 14, 2010 15:51:12 GMT
"Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world."
Wrong. Inheritance taxes were one of the most utilized means of raising revenue 100 years ago. And that middle class was a result of the great compression that started in the 1930s with the New Deal. That compression started to unravel in the 1980s and the Republicans have been trying to return the glorious gilded age of the late 19th century. Work camps, sweat shops, neo-slavery, obscene wealth and back breaking poverty - that ain't middle class.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Feb 14, 2010 16:25:51 GMT
"This party (the GOP) is dominated by a bunch of freaks and kooks" Barry Goldwater, 1988. You willfully ignore the FACT that Ron Paul doesn't meet your unfair blanket statements, stereotypes, etc. Instead, you put this up: ANOTHER unfair blanket statement. There's also OTHERS in Republican Party who don't meet your narrow-minded, arrogant statements. By this, I'm talking about the people who aren't in office, but who I've run into online and off. NOT ALL in Republican Party were/are what Goldwater said. Very sad, but no surprise you willfully ignore information that contradicts your narrow-minded statements.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Feb 14, 2010 18:08:00 GMT
"Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world." Wrong. Inheritance taxes were one of the most utilized means of raising revenue 100 years ago. And that middle class was a result of the great compression that started in the 1930s with the New Deal. That compression started to unravel in the 1980s and the Republicans have been trying to return the glorious gilded age of the late 19th century. Work camps, sweat shops, neo-slavery, obscene wealth and back breaking poverty - that ain't middle class. You won't like this, but it's just more proof that the 2 parties that unfairly run everything and persecute 3rd parties are really the SAME beneath the surface rhetoric. It's also PROOF that the "wonderful" ( : Democrats are JUST AS BAD as the Republicans when it comes to deregulation of the banks, etc.: www.counterpunch.org/kaufman09192008.html
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 14, 2010 23:47:02 GMT
Seems to me like many people (our Democrats, Europe's liberals) have been dumbed down with regard to taxes. They've gotten so used to having one or another government entity's hand in their wallet that they don't even seem to notice. They don't notice many of the direct taxes so I'm certain they don't notice indirect taxation.
Indirect taxes are those that you don't pay yourself but are never the less a cost to you. For example, if you are a renter, your landlord pays the property tax and passes it along to you embedded in your rent payment. A lorry or trucking company pays outrageous petrol taxes and road tolls which are passed along to you the consumer in the form of higher prices for items purchased or higher shipping and handling charges. Your favorite restaurant pays employee social security taxes, liquor taxes, property taxes, and a host of other taxes. Perhaps you've noticed that restaurants have gotten rather pricey. Now you know one of the reasons.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 15, 2010 20:14:41 GMT
Seems to me like many people (our Democrats, Europe's liberals) have been dumbed down with regard to taxes. They've gotten so used to having one or another government entity's hand in their wallet that they don't even seem to notice. They don't notice many of the direct taxes so I'm certain they don't notice indirect taxation. Indirect taxes are those that you don't pay yourself but are never the less a cost to you. For example, if you are a renter, your landlord pays the property tax and passes it along to you embedded in your rent payment. A lorry or trucking company pays outrageous petrol taxes and road tolls which are passed along to you the consumer in the form of higher prices for items purchased or higher shipping and handling charges. Your favorite restaurant pays employee social security taxes, liquor taxes, property taxes, and a host of other taxes. Perhaps you've noticed that restaurants have gotten rather pricey. Now you know one of the reasons. naw. i go to shoney's and get all i can eat for nine bucks, and when someone offers all i can eat, i eat all i can granted, that's not as good as teh $2.65 at sir george's thirty years ago, but it beats the hell out of twenty bucks for a little piece of steak and baked potato
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 17, 2010 0:38:03 GMT
Excellent article from Larry Kudlow. He hits the nail on the head with a sledge hammer.
The Washington, D.C., Disconnect A Commentary by Lawrence Kudlow Saturday, February 13, The disconnect between Washington and the rest of the country has never been greater. Why can't the political class in the District of Columbia produce a fiscal product that voters, taxpayers and investors are willing to consume? According to The Washington Post, voters want smaller government and fewer government services by a large 58 percent to 38 percent margin. Pollster Scott Rasmussen reveals that 61 percent of voters believe tax cuts help the economy, that 59 percent think tax cuts are a better job-creation tool than increased government spending and that another 59 percent believe higher deficits hurt the economy. Rasmussen also reports that a full 83 percent of Americans blame the deficit on the unwillingness of politicians to cut government spending. And get this: In a whopper of a poll result, The New York Times reports that 75 percent of Americans dislike Congress. This is why there's a political revolt out there. Washington just doesn't get it. Inside the Beltway, Democrats are sending a profoundly pessimistic message that only government knows best. But out there in the heartland there is an optimistic message that We the People know best. And that heartland optimism will not be stopped. The future of the U.S. economy -- including jobs, growth and the stock market -- hangs in the balance. Government-controlled health care, with Senate vote-purchasing and union special-interest loopholes, is not the answer. Nor is a $2 trillion tax hike on banks, multinational corporations, capital gains, inheritance and successful upper-income earners. Nor is a doubling of the publicly held federal debt to $19 trillion, or nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product. Nor is a federal spending ratio of 25 percent of the economy. Nor is a budget deficit at a 10 percent share of GDP for as far as the eye can see. Again, Washington doesn't get it. Politicians are delivering a fiscal product that no one in America wants. It's no wonder small businesses aren't hiring. Yes, there is a cyclical recovery going on, but it is incomplete without the jobs. The so-called $85 billion jobs program is not a jobs program at all. It is a spending bill. Temporary tax credits to hire new workers have virtually no permanent job-creating effect. In budget terms, these kinds of temporary tax credits are scored as tax expenditures -- i.e., spending. Only a permanent reduction in the marginal business tax rate has the incentive effect for long-run job creation. Reducing the business tax rate makes firms more profitable after-tax. And it gives them more cash flow. Those incentives will work to expand investment and jobs. And taxing capital is the worst idea of all. That's why the capital-gains tax must not be increased. Plus, raising the top two income tax brackets from 33 percent to 35 percent, and then from 35 percent to 40 percent, thereby penalizing those who own about half of the small-business income, is a job-destroyer. Why Republicans are flirting with this terrible temporary small-business tax credit is beyond me. This is a moment for the GOP to send a message that it is the party of growth through across-the-board reductions in marginal tax rates -- for everyone. That includes large and small businesses, along with all individuals and families. All producers and investors should get lower tax rates. At a bare minimum, Republicans should be fighting hard to extend the George W. Bush tax cuts on the way to a longer-term goal of low-rate, flat-tax reform. So no wonder we're witnessing a growing tea-party revolt. I call it tea-party, free-market populism. But one-party partisan stubbornness in Washington just won't listen to it. Democrats refuse to heed the message of the polls, or the election results in Virginia, New Jersey and -- of course -- Massachusetts. They simply will not acknowledge the meaning of Scott Brown's miracle win. The stock market peak occurred about a month ago, with announcements of a bank tax hike, a corporate tax hike on foreign earnings and a massive spending-and-borrowing federal budget. That's not a coincidence, folks. While voters may not love the Republicans, they do want political balance back in Washington. They don't want any of this manufactured, left-wing, class-warfare populism. That's why the anti-incumbency mood is so prevalent today and why there is going to be major change in Washington. What do I think voters want? Traditional, commonsense, center-right free enterprise, which basically says to the government, "Please, let me keep more of what I earn and, please, just leave me alone." The time has come for our government to get out of the way, allow the American people to prosper, create wealth, build businesses and advance technology, and let the United States be the No. 1 country in the world from now until forever. It's called optimism.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 17, 2010 11:25:54 GMT
"This party (the GOP) is dominated by a bunch of freaks and kooks" Barry Goldwater, 1988. You willfully ignore the FACT that Ron Paul doesn't meet your unfair blanket statements, stereotypes, etc. Instead, you put this up: ANOTHER unfair blanket statement. There's also OTHERS in Republican Party who don't meet your narrow-minded, arrogant statements. By this, I'm talking about the people who aren't in office, but who I've run into online and off. NOT ALL in Republican Party were/are what Goldwater said. Very sad, but no surprise you willfully ignore information that contradicts your narrow-minded statements. you can hardly say that ron paul dominates the republican party hon
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 17, 2010 11:29:20 GMT
Excellent article from Larry Kudlow. He hits the nail on the head with a sledge hammer. The Washington, D.C., Disconnect A Commentary by Lawrence Kudlow Saturday, February 13, The disconnect between Washington and the rest of the country has never been greater. Why can't the political class in the District of Columbia produce a fiscal product that voters, taxpayers and investors are willing to consume? According to The Washington Post, voters want smaller government and fewer government services by a large 58 percent to 38 percent margin. Pollster Scott Rasmussen reveals that 61 percent of voters believe tax cuts help the economy, that 59 percent think tax cuts are a better job-creation tool than increased government spending and that another 59 percent believe higher deficits hurt the economy. Rasmussen also reports that a full 83 percent of Americans blame the deficit on the unwillingness of politicians to cut government spending. And get this: In a whopper of a poll result, The New York Times reports that 75 percent of Americans dislike Congress. This is why there's a political revolt out there. Washington just doesn't get it. Inside the Beltway, Democrats are sending a profoundly pessimistic message that only government knows best. But out there in the heartland there is an optimistic message that We the People know best. And that heartland optimism will not be stopped. The future of the U.S. economy -- including jobs, growth and the stock market -- hangs in the balance. Government-controlled health care, with Senate vote-purchasing and union special-interest loopholes, is not the answer. Nor is a $2 trillion tax hike on banks, multinational corporations, capital gains, inheritance and successful upper-income earners. Nor is a doubling of the publicly held federal debt to $19 trillion, or nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product. Nor is a federal spending ratio of 25 percent of the economy. Nor is a budget deficit at a 10 percent share of GDP for as far as the eye can see. Again, Washington doesn't get it. Politicians are delivering a fiscal product that no one in America wants. It's no wonder small businesses aren't hiring. Yes, there is a cyclical recovery going on, but it is incomplete without the jobs. The so-called $85 billion jobs program is not a jobs program at all. It is a spending bill. Temporary tax credits to hire new workers have virtually no permanent job-creating effect. In budget terms, these kinds of temporary tax credits are scored as tax expenditures -- i.e., spending. Only a permanent reduction in the marginal business tax rate has the incentive effect for long-run job creation. Reducing the business tax rate makes firms more profitable after-tax. And it gives them more cash flow. Those incentives will work to expand investment and jobs. And taxing capital is the worst idea of all. That's why the capital-gains tax must not be increased. Plus, raising the top two income tax brackets from 33 percent to 35 percent, and then from 35 percent to 40 percent, thereby penalizing those who own about half of the small-business income, is a job-destroyer. Why Republicans are flirting with this terrible temporary small-business tax credit is beyond me. This is a moment for the GOP to send a message that it is the party of growth through across-the-board reductions in marginal tax rates -- for everyone. That includes large and small businesses, along with all individuals and families. All producers and investors should get lower tax rates. At a bare minimum, Republicans should be fighting hard to extend the George W. Bush tax cuts on the way to a longer-term goal of low-rate, flat-tax reform. So no wonder we're witnessing a growing tea-party revolt. I call it tea-party, free-market populism. But one-party partisan stubbornness in Washington just won't listen to it. Democrats refuse to heed the message of the polls, or the election results in Virginia, New Jersey and -- of course -- Massachusetts. They simply will not acknowledge the meaning of Scott Brown's miracle win. The stock market peak occurred about a month ago, with announcements of a bank tax hike, a corporate tax hike on foreign earnings and a massive spending-and-borrowing federal budget. That's not a coincidence, folks. While voters may not love the Republicans, they do want political balance back in Washington. They don't want any of this manufactured, left-wing, class-warfare populism. That's why the anti-incumbency mood is so prevalent today and why there is going to be major change in Washington. What do I think voters want? Traditional, commonsense, center-right free enterprise, which basically says to the government, "Please, let me keep more of what I earn and, please, just leave me alone." The time has come for our government to get out of the way, allow the American people to prosper, create wealth, build businesses and advance technology, and let the United States be the No. 1 country in the world from now until forever. It's called optimism. since it is total bullshyt, with his imaginary numbers, the nail that he hit is in his head.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Feb 17, 2010 12:22:35 GMT
"since it is total bullshyt, with his imaginary numbers, the nail that he hit is in his head.".
You've pretty much summed up the career of Lawrence Kudlow, the supply-side guru.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Feb 17, 2010 14:02:36 GMT
So define "distributism", Big Lin. Tell us how it would work in a modern industrialised multi cultured society.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 17, 2010 20:28:15 GMT
"since it is total bullshyt, with his imaginary numbers, the nail that he hit is in his head.". You've pretty much summed up the career of Lawrence Kudlow, the supply-side guru. yep. for sure, if it were possible, he's even more stupid than steve forbes and jonathan honig. supply side economics is the bane of society, and precisely what makes society decidedly UNcivilized
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 5, 2010 13:28:10 GMT
A Short History of Government Stimulus Spending and Economic Prosperity in the 20th Century To be able to critically analyze economic probabilities, one needs to know the history of previous similar situations. For the first 125 years of our country we had no Federal Reserve Bank, no personal income tax and no massive government stimulus spending. We also had virtually no inflation and the average economic downturn lasted only 10 months. In late 1913 the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) was created. It made it possible for the government to create money out of thin air. Also a permanent income tax was passed. From 1915 to 1920 inflation was over 75%. Since 1915 inflation has been over 340% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By 1920-21 the USA experienced the greatest economic downturn and depression in our history. Our economy contracted by 21% in one year putting millions out of work. What caused this? Among other things, the Federal Reserve Bank became the vehicle of the ‘progressive’ Wilson administration to borrow and create money to fund WW I along with a Federal income tax and many new regulations on businesses. What did President Harding’s administration do to get out of this depression left by President Wilson? Government spending in 1922 alone was slashed by 34%. They reduced taxes on businesses and individuals from 73% to 24%. They also repealed a lot of the costly government bureaucratic regulations on businesses. The result was a huge increase in tax revenues and prosperity, as has always happened when government intervention in the economy is reduced. We had the roaring twenties, the time of the greatest economic and technical improvement in the standard of living of the American people in our history. Also there were government budget surpluses every year and much of the WWI debt was paid off. To keep the growth going in the late 1920’s, the FED kept interest rates artificially low thus contributing to over speculation in the stock markets. Also in 1929, Congress announced their intention to pass punitive tariffs to protect US manufacturers and unions from foreign competition. Although several thousand economists warned the Congress that the passage of such legislation would result in punitive reciprocal tariffs against US exports and cause a depression, the Congress passed the tariff bill anyway. This resulted in US exports decreasing by 66% and worldwide unemployment reached 25%. President Hoover came into office in 1929. He was not a free market President. After the stock market crash in 1929 he and the Congress started a massive 42% increase in government stimulus projects in his first two years of office, raised taxes on individuals and corporations and urged corporations NOT to lower union wages. The result was that numerous corporations could not be competitive and went out of business. Unemployment soared. Also the increase in taxes reduced personal saving and investment that would normally have gone to create permanent new jobs in the productive private sector. Do you see any parallels with what's going on right now? President Roosevelt and the Congress elected in 1932 adopted Hoover's policies, expanded them and called it the ‘New Deal.’ They added a dizzying increase in new government agencies and temporary public works jobs. The result was that the Depression continued with unemployment never going under 14% for another 8 years. At the same time Canada had virtually no new government programs and their economy recovered. What does that tell you? US private sector production remained below 1929 levels until much of the New Deal legislation was repealed after WWII. Actually there was a second Depression in 1938 as FDR’s new government programs gave the appearance of unemployment going down temporarily but in the end further strangled the creation of new permanent productive jobs. Unemployment went up to 19%. That is why most of Obama administration “Stimulus” funds will hit the street before the coming elections – to make it appear that unemployment is going down. When John F. Kennedy’s administration lowered taxes, reduced regulations and took on the unions in the early 1960’s, the economy surged. When Ronald Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate in the early 1980’s from 70% down to 28%, government tax revenues almost doubled during the next 10 years. 22.4 million new jobs were created. His supply side or trickledown economics has worked every time it has been tried. Unfortunately Congress tripled spending, causing a deficit. Economic historical evidence is overwhelming that the lowering of taxes, cutting back government spending, cutting tariffs and deregulating control over private businesses has virtually always created permanent new jobs. And raising taxes and tariffs, increased government spending and control has usually hurt lasting new job growth. Those that have not learned the lessons of the past are bound to have them repeated. James F. Davis 23 Sourwood Lane Hayesville, NC 28904
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 5, 2010 15:40:12 GMT
A Short History of Government Stimulus Spending and Economic Prosperity in the 20th Century To be able to critically analyze economic probabilities, one needs to know the history of previous similar situations. For the first 125 years of our country we had no Federal Reserve Bank, no personal income tax and no massive government stimulus spending. We also had virtually no inflation and the average economic downturn lasted only 10 months. In late 1913 the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) was created. It made it possible for the government to create money out of thin air. Also a permanent income tax was passed. From 1915 to 1920 inflation was over 75%. Since 1915 inflation has been over 340% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By 1920-21 the USA experienced the greatest economic downturn and depression in our history. Our economy contracted by 21% in one year putting millions out of work. What caused this? Among other things, the Federal Reserve Bank became the vehicle of the ‘progressive’ Wilson administration to borrow and create money to fund WW I along with a Federal income tax and many new regulations on businesses. What did President Harding’s administration do to get out of this depression left by President Wilson? Government spending in 1922 alone was slashed by 34%. They reduced taxes on businesses and individuals from 73% to 24%. They also repealed a lot of the costly government bureaucratic regulations on businesses. The result was a huge increase in tax revenues and prosperity, as has always happened when government intervention in the economy is reduced. We had the roaring twenties, the time of the greatest economic and technical improvement in the standard of living of the American people in our history. Also there were government budget surpluses every year and much of the WWI debt was paid off. To keep the growth going in the late 1920’s, the FED kept interest rates artificially low thus contributing to over speculation in the stock markets. Also in 1929, Congress announced their intention to pass punitive tariffs to protect US manufacturers and unions from foreign competition. Although several thousand economists warned the Congress that the passage of such legislation would result in punitive reciprocal tariffs against US exports and cause a depression, the Congress passed the tariff bill anyway. This resulted in US exports decreasing by 66% and worldwide unemployment reached 25%. President Hoover came into office in 1929. He was not a free market President. After the stock market crash in 1929 he and the Congress started a massive 42% increase in government stimulus projects in his first two years of office, raised taxes on individuals and corporations and urged corporations NOT to lower union wages. The result was that numerous corporations could not be competitive and went out of business. Unemployment soared. Also the increase in taxes reduced personal saving and investment that would normally have gone to create permanent new jobs in the productive private sector. Do you see any parallels with what's going on right now? President Roosevelt and the Congress elected in 1932 adopted Hoover's policies, expanded them and called it the ‘New Deal.’ They added a dizzying increase in new government agencies and temporary public works jobs. The result was that the Depression continued with unemployment never going under 14% for another 8 years. At the same time Canada had virtually no new government programs and their economy recovered. What does that tell you? US private sector production remained below 1929 levels until much of the New Deal legislation was repealed after WWII. Actually there was a second Depression in 1938 as FDR’s new government programs gave the appearance of unemployment going down temporarily but in the end further strangled the creation of new permanent productive jobs. Unemployment went up to 19%. That is why most of Obama administration “Stimulus” funds will hit the street before the coming elections – to make it appear that unemployment is going down. When John F. Kennedy’s administration lowered taxes, reduced regulations and took on the unions in the early 1960’s, the economy surged. When Ronald Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate in the early 1980’s from 70% down to 28%, government tax revenues almost doubled during the next 10 years. 22.4 million new jobs were created. His supply side or trickledown economics has worked every time it has been tried. Unfortunately Congress tripled spending, causing a deficit. Economic historical evidence is overwhelming that the lowering of taxes, cutting back government spending, cutting tariffs and deregulating control over private businesses has virtually always created permanent new jobs. And raising taxes and tariffs, increased government spending and control has usually hurt lasting new job growth. Those that have not learned the lessons of the past are bound to have them repeated. James F. Davis 23 Sourwood Lane Hayesville, NC 28904 why do you insist on posting such demonstrably imbecillic nonsense. of course the events happened, but only the most irrational lunatic, as davis obviously is, would attribute ANY of those events the way this nutjob is. the reality is quite simple. when there has been tight government control, the nation has prospered. when we've had idiots such as reagan and dumbya, we have ten percent unemployment. as he says, those who choose to not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. i'm glad davis so adores the economic problems that lunatics like him have created
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 5, 2010 16:05:51 GMT
Bushadmirer
I'm going to be honest with you; I don't read your posts very much when you just cut and paste some article from somewhere.
I'd be much more interested in your own thoughts in your own words.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 5, 2010 19:27:40 GMT
Riotgirl - Sometimes an author or cartoonist can express a point of view better than I can. The Davis article above is very well researched and quite well written. It brings forth the failed history of our Democrats and lays it out in detail (despite Jumbo's mumblings to the contrary). Here is another example. Fox News is our only televised source of objective political news. The other major networks have sold out to Obama and the Democrats. Here is a cartoon that hits the nail on the head.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 5, 2010 20:05:10 GMT
Bushadmirer,
Being in the UK, I'm not familiar at all with Fox's news outputs, but the general sense I have is that are they not supposed to be the TV equivalent of the UK's Daily Mail?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 5, 2010 23:58:59 GMT
Bushadmirer, Being in the UK, I'm not familiar at all with Fox's news outputs, but the general sense I have is that are they not supposed to be the TV equivalent of the UK's Daily Mail? the reality is that there is nothing about faux news that is news. yes, they do give the occassional headline, but otherwise, it is 24/7 right wing lunatic fringe editorializing. fact is anathema to them. of course, that's why das likes faux news. he doesn't have to be bothered by reality
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 5, 2010 23:59:31 GMT
That cartoon is so perfect. It just tells the story exactly as it is.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 6, 2010 0:39:31 GMT
Quote: Fox News is our only televised source of objective political news. . . . and, that remark eliminates any possibility of taking you seriously, das.
|
|