Skip to main content

http://time.com/3132635/fergus...e-war-class-warfare/

 

Granted it's someone's opinion but you can be assured many are having that same opinion that there is Social unrest in the Nation's future.  Now while I very much hope that they are wrong it's no big secret that welfare and Governmental assistance has grown greatly under Obama's Administration and it could be argued under any Democratic Administration.  The significance of that or this administration's growth as well as or in conjunction with a greatly increased illegal immigration increase that very soon will see those illegals plus many more be granted citizenship as well as benefits means many more people living off the Government rather than having and possessing a job.

 

Now it's not too difficult to envision what the response will be when the money runs down or runs out and people are cut from the give me rolls.  Maybe that's exactly what the Government expects when they are greatly arming many Governmental agencies and Homeland Security to the point that they are armed much more than is needed for defending against some threat such as Radical Muslims.  Of course there is no such thing as Radical Muslims at least in the Obama Administrations opinion for even that term is taboo for anyone in Government or media to say.

 

So getting back to the topic heading IF there is social unrest of a great magnitude coming then are we not sewing the seeds of our own demise?

Be as the Bereans ( Acts 17:11 )

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

It's coming, too much goes to the top.  America is the most top heavy income distribution nation in the civilized world. If you want to build anything, it has to be from the ground up. Trickle down don't work.

__________________________________________
Radicals love calls for blood in the streets. Historically, it usually ends up, as their own.

 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

It's coming, too much goes to the top.  America is the most top heavy income distribution nation in the civilized world. If you want to build anything, it has to be from the ground up. Trickle down don't work.

you are correct jt. too bad the blind like the dires in society cannot see it.

they try insult in place of reason to lull their conscience to sleep

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

It's coming, too much goes to the top.  America is the most top heavy income distribution nation in the civilized world. If you want to build anything, it has to be from the ground up. Trickle down don't work.

______________________________________________

 

You say that but you want it to trickle down from the government......which does not work and never has.

Originally Posted by Jobe:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

It's coming, too much goes to the top.  America is the most top heavy income distribution nation in the civilized world. If you want to build anything, it has to be from the ground up. Trickle down don't work.

______________________________________________

 

You say that but you want it to trickle down from the government......which does not work and never has.

_________________________________________________
Lower taxes and regulations in the sixties and eighties, the nation and all prospered. 

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

so, jobe admits that 'trickle down' doesn't work.. all while telling us the virtues of the 'rt. wingnut policy'.. this is priceless.

____________________________________________________

 

Where did I say anything about the virtues of any policy? You’d make a good journalist…..make up stuff as you go. But we’re used to that from you.

Originally Posted by Jobe:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

so, jobe admits that 'trickle down' doesn't work.. all while telling us the virtues of the 'rt. wingnut policy'.. this is priceless.

____________________________________________________

 

Where did I say anything about the virtues of any policy? You’d make a good journalist…..make up stuff as you go. But we’re used to that from you.

______________

bahahahahaha! do you even read what you post? do you even remember what you post? i suppose you've been telling us how the democrats are the party that fixes the economy? i suppose you've been telling us how democrat policy is great? or do you suppose you've been telling us how stupid the democrats are .. and how wonderful the conservatives/tea party/republicans are doing?

Last edited by Crash.Override
Originally Posted by Jobe:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

It's coming, too much goes to the top.  America is the most top heavy income distribution nation in the civilized world. If you want to build anything, it has to be from the ground up. Trickle down don't work.

______________________________________________

 

You say that but you want it to trickle down from the government......which does not work and never has.

Here I fixed it for you Jobe

Stealing from one to give to another who in many cases give little or no effort to better themselves or as is currently happening giving it to illegals who should not under any circumstances be getting government assistance.  Receiving money for nothing results in this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...ft-article-1.1896396

Last edited by HIFLYER2

And now regarding the illegals that are coming across our borders. In numbers never like seen comes word that our beloved politicians, in order to get them into our schools past the requirements set up for our own kids protections are calling ang designating illegals as HOMELESS which allows them immediate entry in the schools past the barriers such as the immunization  requirements.  Now we are exposing our kids, our schools, our own selves to who knows what all diseases and infections.

 

also this serves a dual purpous since it also will pave the way for citizenship as well  as benefits such as welfare.  We are not too top heavy we are overloading the bottom (feeders) and people who take and don't contribute or give.  As unemployment takes more and more jobs or drives high paying jobs away replacing them with lower paying ones you take in less and less taxes.  

 

you miscategorize trickle down as what that means is you employ more and more even lowering the tax rate and it stimulates the economy driving hope and growth and even more jobs and as more and more join the workforce even while paying less of a tax rate the benefits "trickle down" to all even those on the bottom.

 

what our current lot of leaders are doing is through healthcare providing incentive to reduce employment killing jobs by making it much more expensive to do business due to required healthcare cost.

The problem is with the education system. The schools in the inner cities are failing the minorities that attend them. It isn't a money issue because we spend more per student than any country in the world.

 

When principals are not given the power to fire bad employees and students are only given one choice on the school they can attend you get what you have now. 

Originally Posted by direstraits:

JFK used the rising tide raises all boats., same difference. I suggest anyone referencing my statements on manufacturing and prosperity in the 80s quote me directly and not lie.

Originally Posted by direstraits:

  Overseas movement of US companies didn't start in China until about 1978 when the Chinese government embraced foreign trade and state capitalism. By then, the US cities were in decay.

 __________________

so, there you have it.. dire , in one post, says that by 1978 the cities were in decay and companies were starting to move overseas.... as i said, dire has a hard time keeping up with his own lies. all while accusing everyone else of lying. bahahahahahaha

Last edited by Crash.Override
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

JFK used the rising tide raises all boats., same difference. I suggest anyone referencing my statements on manufacturing and prosperity in the 80s quote me directly and not lie.

Originally Posted by direstraits:

  Overseas movement of US companies didn't start in China until about 1978 when the Chinese government embraced foreign trade and state capitalism. By then, the US cities were in decay.

 __________________

so, there you have it.. dire , in one post, says that by 1978 the cities were in decay and companies were starting to move overseas.... as i said, dire has a hard time keeping up with his own lies. all while accusing everyone else of lying. bahahahahahaha

________________________________________________

Selectively quoting, I made that statement about the decay and economic decline of our cities. Much of the rest of the nation prospered. I realize that two things existing simultaneously with different results is rather difficult for those with limited wit to comprehend. 

 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

It's coming, too much goes to the top.  America is the most top heavy income distribution nation in the civilized world. If you want to build anything, it has to be from the ground up. Trickle down don't work.

=============

I agree that it is coming, but it may not come in the way a lot of people think. The same scenario played out a couple of generations ago. The same inequality distribution of wealth existed then, for the same reason - the failed economic theory that the Republicans have hung onto since the turn of the 20th century, trickle down economics.
We virtually had an overthrow of the government that existed when FDR and the Progressives came to power. They instilled controls on Wall Street, banking and the economic system of the country. They changed the tax code so that it was much better for a company to invest in building itself larger and larger , than for them to pocket the profits in overseas accounts. They gave support to unions along with public works projects where workers were paid well above average wages, so if a company wanted to hire workers , they had to pay competitive wages to get them.
It was literally a revolution, and it kept this country in basically a stable economic environment for almost 50 years. Then , forgetting our history, we had another revolution. People came to power that ended the protections for Wall Street, and banking. They returned to the old trickle down economic theory that had failed , thereby making it more acceptable for corporations to pay the top tier extraordinary sums for tearing apart the very companies they worked for, all for a more profitable quarter this one than the last one, laying off workers (the Reagan Depression) and hoarding theiri billions.
Even tho we had a reprieve for 8 years , and tried to reverse that trickle down affect, the following 8 were disasterous as the trickle down policies, along with the deregulations that had finally started to kick in caused what would have been another Great Depression had it not been for a few of the safety nets still left from the 1930s still hanging around.
Nothing has been done yet to stop that last revolution, but when the American people get tired of being serfs to the "Robber Barrons" of this era, and realize that they have been voting against their own self interest and have brought all this on themselves, the tide will once again turn. Sooner or later , another Progressive will show up to carry the torch and return this country to the "shining city on the hiill" that it was before the regressives tore it down.

 

Lower taxes and regulations in the sixties and eighties, the nation and all prospered. 

Dire,  This is from Tax Foundation.org

TOP RATES

business income tax rates:1960 to 1970=From 48% to 52.8%

                                          1970 to 1980=From 46% to 49.2%

                                          1980 to 1990= From 34% to 46%

                                          1990 to 2000= From 34% to 35%

                                          2000 onward=35%

personal tax rates  1960 to 1963=91%,  

                               1964=77%

                               1965 to 1981=70%

                                1982 to 1986 =50%

                                1987 38.5%

                                1988 to 1990= 28%

                                 1991 to 1992= 31%

                                  1993 to 2001= 39%

                                 2003=  35%

                                  2013= 39.6%

Do you really want to go back to the tax rates of the sixties and eighties?  You're one of a kind for a right winger.

                                 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Lower taxes and regulations in the sixties and eighties, the nation and all prospered. 

Dire,  This is from Tax Foundation.org

TOP RATES

business income tax rates:1960 to 1970=From 48% to 52.8%

                                          1970 to 1980=From 46% to 49.2%

                                          1980 to 1990= From 34% to 46%

                                          1990 to 2000= From 34% to 35%

                                          2000 onward=35%

personal tax rates  1960 to 1963=91%,  

                               1964=77%

                               1965 to 1981=70%

                                1982 to 1986 =50%

                                1987 38.5%

                                1988 to 1990= 28%

                                 1991 to 1992= 31%

                                  1993 to 2001= 39%

                                 2003=  35%

                                  2013= 39.6%

Do you really want to go back to the tax rates of the sixties and eighties?  You're one of a kind for a right winger.

                                 

No one paid those high rates from 60's. The effective tax rates have remained largely unchanged over the last 20 or so years. Maybe someone can pull a graph showing this.

 

The problem is with the complexity of our tax code and how it is dominated by special interests. Lobbyists own the politicians from the 2 major parties and as a result they pay to get special treatment in the form of tax loopholes and regulations.

 

It is what we call "crony capitalism" and it is a MAJOR problem. 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Lower taxes and regulations in the sixties and eighties, the nation and all prospered. 

Dire,  This is from Tax Foundation.org

TOP RATES

business income tax rates:1960 to 1970=From 48% to 52.8%

                                          1970 to 1980=From 46% to 49.2%

                                          1980 to 1990= From 34% to 46%

                                          1990 to 2000= From 34% to 35%

                                          2000 onward=35%

personal tax rates  1960 to 1963=91%,  

                               1964=77%

                               1965 to 1981=70%

                                1982 to 1986 =50%

                                1987 38.5%

                                1988 to 1990= 28%

                                 1991 to 1992= 31%

                                  1993 to 2001= 39%

                                 2003=  35%

                                  2013= 39.6%

Do you really want to go back to the tax rates of the sixties and eighties?  You're one of a kind for a right winger.

                                 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

TAX RATES JFK, REAGAN BUSG

 

 

TAX CUT RESULTS

 

 

As the only rational reason for taxes is to provide revenue to the government, the above shows that in all three cited cases, as tax rate decreased, the amount of revenue increased.  So, I'd answer your question with a big "Hell, Yes!"

 

All three periods were noted for increased GDP expansion and increased employment. 

Attachments

Images (2)
  • TAX RATES JFK, REAGAN BUSG
  • TAX CUT RESULTS
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Lower taxes and regulations in the sixties and eighties, the nation and all prospered. 

Dire,  This is from Tax Foundation.org

TOP RATES

business income tax rates:1960 to 1970=From 48% to 52.8%

                                          1970 to 1980=From 46% to 49.2%

                                          1980 to 1990= From 34% to 46%

                                          1990 to 2000= From 34% to 35%

                                          2000 onward=35%

personal tax rates  1960 to 1963=91%,  

                               1964=77%

                               1965 to 1981=70%

                                1982 to 1986 =50%

                                1987 38.5%

                                1988 to 1990= 28%

                                 1991 to 1992= 31%

                                  1993 to 2001= 39%

                                 2003=  35%

                                  2013= 39.6%

Do you really want to go back to the tax rates of the sixties and eighties?  You're one of a kind for a right winger.

                                 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

TAX RATES JFK, REAGAN BUSG

 

 

TAX CUT RESULTS

 

 

As the only rational reason for taxes is to provide revenue to the government, the above shows that in all three cited cases, as tax rate decreased, the amount of revenue increased.  So, I'd answer your question with a big "Hell, Yes!"

 

All three periods were noted for increased GDP expansion and increased employment. 

Wrong as usual. Yes ONE of the reasons for taxes is to provide revenue for investment in infrastructure , education , and other things that are necessary for the common good of a people, but there are other uses of it, one of which I explained before - use tax policy to increase corporate investment in their own business(es) .
I was there , I know., after the Reagan tax cuts, the first things corporations did was start cutting employees, and it wasn't just that they were being cut due to emerging techonology - they were being cut in order to make more money this quarter than last - every single quarter.
The quickest and easiest way to suddenly increase profits is to cut salary overhead, however, in the long run, cutting salary overhead reduces the growth potential of most companies. Didn't matter under the Reagan tax policies, as the song says "Take the Money and Run", and that's damm well what they did. It caused a depression for tens of thousands of American worker class people. Like I said before, I know, I was there and saw it, and learned to regret both votes I had cast for that monster Reagan.

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Lower taxes and regulations in the sixties and eighties, the nation and all prospered. 

Dire,  This is from Tax Foundation.org

TOP RATES

business income tax rates:1960 to 1970=From 48% to 52.8%

                                          1970 to 1980=From 46% to 49.2%

                                          1980 to 1990= From 34% to 46%

                                          1990 to 2000= From 34% to 35%

                                          2000 onward=35%

personal tax rates  1960 to 1963=91%,  

                               1964=77%

                               1965 to 1981=70%

                                1982 to 1986 =50%

                                1987 38.5%

                                1988 to 1990= 28%

                                 1991 to 1992= 31%

                                  1993 to 2001= 39%

                                 2003=  35%

                                  2013= 39.6%

Do you really want to go back to the tax rates of the sixties and eighties?  You're one of a kind for a right winger.

                                 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

TAX RATES JFK, REAGAN BUSG

 

 

TAX CUT RESULTS

 

 

As the only rational reason for taxes is to provide revenue to the government, the above shows that in all three cited cases, as tax rate decreased, the amount of revenue increased.  So, I'd answer your question with a big "Hell, Yes!"

 

All three periods were noted for increased GDP expansion and increased employment. 

Wrong as usual. Yes ONE of the reasons for taxes is to provide revenue for investment in infrastructure , education , and other things that are necessary for the common good of a people, but there are other uses of it, one of which I explained before - use tax policy to increase corporate investment in their own business(es) .
I was there , I know., after the Reagan tax cuts, the first things corporations did was start cutting employees, and it wasn't just that they were being cut due to emerging techonology - they were being cut in order to make more money this quarter than last - every single quarter.
The quickest and easiest way to suddenly increase profits is to cut salary overhead, however, in the long run, cutting salary overhead reduces the growth potential of most companies. Didn't matter under the Reagan tax policies, as the song says "Take the Money and Run", and that's damm well what they did. It caused a depression for tens of thousands of American worker class people. Like I said before, I know, I was there and saw it, and learned to regret both votes I had cast for that monster Reagan.

 

There is a point of diminishing returns where cutting labor overhead no longer helps The bottom line, but hurts it.

 

A company does not need help from the govt to figure out where that point is.

Last edited by Kenny Powers

I'm actually optimistic. we have a chance to bring a number of manufacturing jobs to this country. The energy boom such as shale can make us much less dependent on foreign fuels and make energy intense industries competitive in this country. We still lead the world in technology And that's unlikely to change in the near future.

I would like to see the tax code tweaked to make our corporate tax rate more competitive with the rest of the world even accepting some higher individual rates as a trade. And though we'll never end it some attempt to reign in crony capitalism must be made.

Originally Posted by Red Baron:

I'm actually optimistic. we have a chance to bring a number of manufacturing jobs to this country. The energy boom such as shale can make us much less dependent on foreign fuels and make energy intense industries competitive in this country. We still lead the world in technology And that's unlikely to change in the near future.

I would like to see the tax code tweaked to make our corporate tax rate more competitive with the rest of the world even accepting some higher individual rates as a trade. And though we'll never end it some attempt to reign in crony capitalism must be made.

I agree, but this will never happen with our current 2 party system. Both parties are bought and paid for by special interests.

 

Not to mention that a politicians main incentive is to get re-elected. That's why they will never do anything rock the boat and give an opponent ammo.

 

dave Camp came out with his proposal for tax reform, which had some good ideas. However, it should also be noted that he is retiring.

I guess we can all dream for a better future for our kids and grandchildren. There are quite a few possibilities in the near future as well as a few probable downturns created by the fools in DC who couldn't run a lemonade stand. The world has become an unstable place for running businesses with all the wars and social unrest. The promise of a large fuel source and a stable business climate along with a corporate tax rate cuts could set the U.S. up for a century greater than the 20th' Century. 

Seeweed.

 

Per seeweed, "Wrong as usual. Yes ONE of the reasons for taxes is to provide revenue for investment in infrastructure , education , and other things that are necessary for the common good of a people, but there are other uses of it, one of which I explained before - use tax policy to increase corporate investment in their own business(es) "

 

So, you would rather add billions to the debt to satisfy a theoretical economic goal, rather than collect more taxes. Practically, that's called fanaticism -- beware the grape flavor-aid.

 

Yes, central planning – the socialist ideal that government can always be the wisest in the room. Really hasn’t worked out well.  Government isn’t very good at projecting what is best for any particular industry, let alone all of them. 

 

For the three low tax periods I cited earlier, the results were:

For the three years, 1965 to 197, the average GDP was 7.9 percent.

For the period 1981 to 1988, the average GDP was 5.8 percent.

For the period 2001 to 2008, the average GDP was 4.7 percent.

All beat the present average of 1.75 percent.

For the three low tax periods I cited earlier, the results were:

For the three years, 1965 to 197, the average GDP was 7.9 percent.

For the period 1981 to 1988, the average GDP was 5.8 percent.

For the period 2001 to 2008, the average GDP was 4.7 percent.

All beat the present average of 1.75 percent.

 

The average GDP was a percent of what?

How was the tax low in the periods you mentioned? The charts show a higher number for those years than the present.  Don't they?

For the three low tax periods I cited earlier, the results were:

For the three years, 1965 to 197, the average GDP was 7.9 percent.

For the period 1981 to 1988, the average GDP was 5.8 percent.

For the period 2001 to 2008, the average GDP was 4.7 percent.

All beat the present average of 1.75 percent.

 

JT, pardon, but this is relatively simple stuff.  Do you really not comprehend!  I addressed most of this earlier in the thread

The average GDP was a percent of what? 

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States.   Source Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Dept of Commerce.  http://www.bea.gov

How was the tax low in the periods you mentioned?

 

I addressed this earlier in this thread, when I posted the difference in collection of revenue – much higher in low tax era, than in high tax era.  But, once more:

 

TAX CUT RESULTS

The charts show a higher number for those years than the present.  Don't they?

 

  Yes, that’s the point.  The present administration has a miserable record in comparison. 

 

 

1965 to 197, (0?) GDP increased 7.9% when the max tax on individuals was 70% and on business was 48 to 52 percent.

From 1981 to 1988, GDP increased by 5.8% and the max individual rate was from 70 to 38.6% and business was 34 to 46%

From 2001 to 2008, GDP increased by 4.7% and both rates was 35%

It appears that as tax rates go down, GDP goes down.  All these numbers come from posts on this page.

Originally Posted by direstraits:

Seeweed.

 

Per seeweed, "Wrong as usual. Yes ONE of the reasons for taxes is to provide revenue for investment in infrastructure , education , and other things that are necessary for the common good of a people, but there are other uses of it, one of which I explained before - use tax policy to increase corporate investment in their own business(es) "

 

So, you would rather add billions to the debt to satisfy a theoretical economic goal, rather than collect more taxes. Practically, that's called fanaticism -- beware the grape flavor-aid.

 

Yes, central planning – the socialist ideal that government can always be the wisest in the room. Really hasn’t worked out well.  Government isn’t very good at projecting what is best for any particular industry, let alone all of them. 

 

For the three low tax periods I cited earlier, the results were:

For the three years, 1965 to 197, the average GDP was 7.9 percent.

For the period 1981 to 1988, the average GDP was 5.8 percent.

For the period 2001 to 2008, the average GDP was 4.7 percent.

All beat the present average of 1.75 percent.

==============

All you have to do is remember the America, and the economy we had after WWll, and before Reagan, to see the difference. You don't have to read charts, you don't have to even argue, just remember. America was the world's best then. We have certainly fallen a long way since then.
However, like I said, we've been here before with the same economic policies, and if we keep going in the wrong direction (over decades- not president to president), that revolution I mentioned will happen again.
The current model of ending the social safety net (Republican idea), busting unions (Republican idea), ending work safety (Republican idea), and lifting environmental restraints on pollution (Republican obsession) will ultimately produce a surf, or near slave class . You will either be one of the top 10% (and you better believe if you work for a salary you WILL NOT BE ONE OF THOSE), or you will be little more than a serf because without a safety net, you will work foro little of nothing , disregard your safety, and turn a blind eye to the environment , because you will have to put some bread and beans on the table. 
The last Republican president that was worth a damm realized just that, and fought against it, 120 years ago. When did the Republican party give up fighting for the workers and decide to cater only to the rich and powerful ? What a damm mess we are in now.

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Seeweed.

 

Per seeweed, "Wrong as usual. Yes ONE of the reasons for taxes is to provide revenue for investment in infrastructure , education , and other things that are necessary for the common good of a people, but there are other uses of it, one of which I explained before - use tax policy to increase corporate investment in their own business(es) "

 

So, you would rather add billions to the debt to satisfy a theoretical economic goal, rather than collect more taxes. Practically, that's called fanaticism -- beware the grape flavor-aid.

 

Yes, central planning – the socialist ideal that government can always be the wisest in the room. Really hasn’t worked out well.  Government isn’t very good at projecting what is best for any particular industry, let alone all of them. 

 

For the three low tax periods I cited earlier, the results were:

For the three years, 1965 to 197, the average GDP was 7.9 percent.

For the period 1981 to 1988, the average GDP was 5.8 percent.

For the period 2001 to 2008, the average GDP was 4.7 percent.

All beat the present average of 1.75 percent.

==============

All you have to do is remember the America, and the economy we had after WWll, and before Reagan, to see the difference. You don't have to read charts, you don't have to even argue, just remember. America was the world's best then. We have certainly fallen a long way since then.
However, like I said, we've been here before with the same economic policies, and if we keep going in the wrong direction (over decades- not president to president), that revolution I mentioned will happen again.
The current model of ending the social safety net (Republican idea), busting unions (Republican idea), ending work safety (Republican idea), and lifting environmental restraints on pollution (Republican obsession) will ultimately produce a surf, or near slave class . You will either be one of the top 10% (and you better believe if you work for a salary you WILL NOT BE ONE OF THOSE), or you will be little more than a serf because without a safety net, you will work foro little of nothing , disregard your safety, and turn a blind eye to the environment , because you will have to put some bread and beans on the table. 
The last Republican president that was worth a damm realized just that, and fought against it, 120 years ago. When did the Republican party give up fighting for the workers and decide to cater only to the rich and powerful ? What a damm mess we are in now.

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 

Pardon me, but the real reason for the great post war economy was the fact that we didn't have to fill in bomb craters, remove the rubble of our wreaked factories and infrastructure, and rebuild everything new. For a few decades without real competition, we could get by living in the unionist's dreamworld, but at some point competition started eating into our lifestyle. We also created tax laws after WW2 that favored foreign investment, laws that JFK wanted to change and repatriate the offsh-ore Kennedy fortune.

 

 

Originally Posted by Quaildog:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

If, anyone is following the predictions of the liberal economists, many state that about 2 percent GDP is the new normal and they can't imagine how it might be raised. Bullfeathers!

squirrelld dire tax cuts to the rich ain't working dummy

=========

If tax cuts for the rich actually worked, this country would have never had this last depression, and in fact the reverse would be true, we would be swimming in jobs and the middle class would be again on the rise, but the reverse is true , and "supply side economics" is the problem, not the solution.
On the other hand we have the likes of Paul Ryan who thinks we should increase the tax breaks to the wealthy , and take it out of the hide of the elderly, the poor, and the middle class, and if the House votes are any indication, that is the way the entire Republican house rolls.

I think it was A.E  who once said something like "the definition of crazy is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result" . So, according to Albert, if you are a proponent of supply side economics,. you are just crazy. Period.

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Quaildog:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

If, anyone is following the predictions of the liberal economists, many state that about 2 percent GDP is the new normal and they can't imagine how it might be raised. Bullfeathers!

squirrelld dire tax cuts to the rich ain't working dummy

=========

If tax cuts for the rich actually worked, this country would have never had this last depression, and in fact the reverse would be true, we would be swimming in jobs and the middle class would be again on the rise, but the reverse is true , and "supply side economics" is the problem, not the solution.
On the other hand we have the likes of Paul Ryan who thinks we should increase the tax breaks to the wealthy , and take it out of the hide of the elderly, the poor, and the middle class, and if the House votes are any indication, that is the way the entire Republican house rolls.

I think it was A.E  who once said something like "the definition of crazy is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result" . So, according to Albert, if you are a proponent of supply side economics,. you are just crazy. Period.

what a load of crap. 

 

The credit bubble had NOTHING to do with cutting the top tax bracket from 39.6 to 35.

 

do you think Reagan and Clinton were waving sone magic economy wand that Bush didn't have?

 

do you really think that adjusting the tax rates by a few percentage points determines the success or failure of the economy?? LOLOLOLOL 

Last edited by Kenny Powers

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×