PDA

View Full Version : Expiration of BUSH Tax Cuts - The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon


chrsdwns
July 23, 2010, 14:56
Tax increases are generally considered by reputable economists to be a major factor in turning the 1929 Stock Market crash into the Great Depression.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

November 2 elections may just be the most important decision date in our history.

It does not matter if the Republican candidate is god, bad or indifferant - it's all about getting enough of a majority in Federal and State government to put the brakes on before we run the train off the cliff with the Obama Agenda.


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/541131/201007211841/The-Tax-Tsunami-On-The-Horizon.aspx

Skilter
July 23, 2010, 20:21
I know of several business people... (including me) considering selling their businesses in the next couple months. Why? When you got to work an extra two years to overcome the taxes and the rules (haha what rules) are in question... Why not sell now?

what happens then? NO GROWTH IN THE ECONOMY! Most growth comes from small business...


This administration is STUPID!

davedude
July 23, 2010, 23:38
This administration is CRIMINAL!

There, fixed it for ya.

Dave Dude

mutter
July 23, 2010, 23:53
Originally posted by Skilter
I know of several business people... (including me) considering selling their businesses in the next couple months. Why? When you got to work an extra two years to overcome the taxes and the rules (haha what rules) are in question... Why not sell now?

what happens then? NO GROWTH IN THE ECONOMY! Most growth comes from small business...


This administration is CRIMINALLY STUPID!

There I fixed it for both of you. Actually, there was 1 other word that starts with an "F" and ends with an "ucking"I wanted to add but decided not to.

juanni
July 24, 2010, 07:59
The Bush Tax Cuts and the entire billion page Income Tax Code need to be tossed in the trash and start over.

Basic poverty level deduction and nothing more.
No mortgage deduction, no 12 kids deduction,,,,, nothing.
Flat or tiered from there on out.

It would end the need for tax accountants and all the hide and seek.
And provide the FAIR, stable, predictable incentive to work and pay taxes.

To settle for less, is to support corruption.




....................juanni

MtnWulf
July 24, 2010, 08:42
The Bush Tax Cuts and the entire billion page Income Tax Code need to be tossed in the trash and start over. Juanni

Without SEVERE reductions in gov't spending that would mean nothing.

Right Side Up
July 24, 2010, 13:34
With regards to the estate tax for this year, you'd be surprised to know how many wealthy elderly people had the plug pulled on them this year.

juanni
July 24, 2010, 15:00
Originally posted by MtnWulf
The Bush Tax Cuts and the entire billion page Income Tax Code need to be tossed in the trash and start over. Juanni

Without SEVERE reductions in gov't spending that would mean nothing.

Oh, I am all for seriously slashing the Warfare/Welfare state.

And I am also for balanced budgets and ending our perpetual defict spending.

But a simplified, fair income tax would do lots to help the economy and direct private spending where it is best, not where it is the best tax shelter.


...............juanni

MtnWulf
July 24, 2010, 18:11
But a simplified, fair income tax would do lots to help the economy and direct private spending where it is best, not where it is the best tax shelter.

How?

If it is "revenue neutral" then the bloated gov't stays bloated, you're just changing some of the burden.

Gov't MUST be cut.

Douglas S Graham
July 24, 2010, 18:47
Flat tax. End of story.

John Culver
July 25, 2010, 01:42
Originally posted by juanni

Flat or tiered from there on out.






....................juanni

Tiered tax? aka progressive tax? what are you? communist?

I will accept nothing less then a FLAT tax.

TheJokker
July 25, 2010, 07:56
neal boortz: fair tax

mutter
July 25, 2010, 08:15
No such thing as a fair tax when they waste and steal it.

D P Six
July 25, 2010, 09:39
Repeal the 16th Amendment, replace with fair/flat tax.... Sorry, it's not going to happen. The power to tax is the One Ring of Power that controls all else. Our Masters will not give that up lightly.

renaissance_warrior
July 25, 2010, 16:49
Well the Elites could care less, and I have a few thoughts on the matter;

Milton Friedman Quotes -Reagan Economic Advisor: " I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible."

"Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it."

" Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy.
The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom."
"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit." ---This is what the leftists never get-prefering to use Force to Redistribute Your Wealth as They See Fit, and we pay a Huge Premium for their great wisdom and sense of 'fairness' in the spending our money 'for the collective good'.

The Grace commission showed that “The first 2/3 of the income tax is
either wasted or lost. Of the remaining 1/3, every dime of IRS income tax goes to private lenders for interest only on the exponentially escalating national debt. Fred Durland summarizing a finding from the 1984 Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (Grace Commission) - we need a new Grace Commission, it's been 28 years since we nailed down the real costs of redistributing our wealth.

Alas, our 'Utes' never hear of men like Milton Friedman, just Keynesian hacks like Krugman. Socialists (like Hitler) loved Keynesian policies because it invariably results in more and more centralized gov't control over the economy, Keynes was, and is, the fabian socialists best friend.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

Some people never took history classes I guess.

Eric Bryant
July 25, 2010, 18:55
Certain tax cuts may indeed help the economy - but a quick look of the ratio between the US public debt and GDP would seem to indicate that the Bush tax cuts didn't work worth a crap.

Martin Wolf has explored this topic in a bit more detail. (http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/) He doesn't think much of our chance of rectifying the problem due to the political benefits of fiscal irresponsibility.

The flat/fair tax concept would be workable if we had something resembling fair distribution of wealth in this country. We don't, because we've dismantled the middle class. The flat/fair tax probably would have worked splendedly back in the 50s and 60s. Maybe we'll enact something similar the next time around. For now, tax policy will need to be steeply progressive - taxing the rich works because the rich are the only ones with money. I don't much care for the tax rates, but I also don't see much way around it without rebuilding the middle class.

Before I'd monkey around with the progressive tax curves, I'd first eliminate the corporate tax (it's just a cost that is passed on to consumers), and then ruthlessly eliminate deductions from the personal income tax. Once we got things down to where they fit on a 3x5" index card, then we can run that for several years and see if it improves matters. I suspect it will.

I suspect I'll get called a Marxist, but so be it. I pay enough in taxes to have earned the right to an opinion. If someone can find a way to cut my tax bill without putting future generations further into debt, bring it on - just recognize that everyone since WWII has royally f*cked up that particular mission.

renaissance_warrior
July 25, 2010, 19:39
I would add that since 1934 the taxes have been fubar. I like the 3X5" idea, that is called a flat tax. The tax attorney lobby killed that one.

Eric Bryant
July 25, 2010, 21:50
Originally posted by renaissance_warrior
I like the 3X5" idea, that is called a flat tax. The tax attorney lobby killed that one.

It's still possible to implement a progressive tax rate with a simple, exemption-free process. The two concepts (flat rate, simple preparation)are often intermingled. I chalk this up to hidden agendas on behalf of the proponents, but perhaps there are other reasons.

I'm curious to see what Jokker makes of the article by his good buddy Martin Wolf :rofl:

juanni
July 26, 2010, 17:39
Originally posted by John Culver


Tiered tax? aka progressive tax? what are you? communist?

I will accept nothing less then a FLAT tax.

Oh?

What did you "accept" last april? ;)



...............juanni

chrsdwns
July 26, 2010, 22:54
I like the idea of a flat tax.

I also like the idea of all Americans paying income taxes. I don't like the idea of close to 50% of Americans not paying net income taxes, because higher taxes for the "the other guy" is really easy when you don't have pay them too.

renaissance_warrior
July 26, 2010, 23:43
The 'Other guy' has always been the 'rich guys'. The classic 'divide and conquer' approach of ersatz class warfare. That day is gone, in reality.

The whole game is to destroy the middle class, as they typically vote republican. They are doing their best, but not winning, much to their chagrin.

wileycsg
July 27, 2010, 16:08
Originally posted by renaissance_warrior
The 'Other guy' has always been the 'rich guys'. The classic 'divide and conquer' approach of ersatz class warfare. That day is gone, in reality.

The whole game is to destroy the middle class, as they typically vote republican. They are doing their best, but not winning, much to their chagrin.

Actually, the republicans are doing a great job winning at destroying the middle class. The median income in the US fell $2,200 during the Bush years. Meanwhile, the richest 400 families saw their wealth go up 400 billion dollars!

Take a look at the chart in figure 1. Does it really look like the rich are being unfairly attacked? Also, pay special attention to the last time the numbers were skewed so: 1928!

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2006prel.pdf

There's been class warfare and income redistribution going on alright. Republicans need to abandon the silly policy of trickle down economics and get back to being the party of the average working man.

RG Coburn
July 27, 2010, 20:17
Keep the graduated income tax,but collect it from the citizenry directly,not thru with holding. You earn $20 an hour,you get $20 an hour,then you do the sending in.And the bookeeping.And pay the late penalties.Only when EVERY person gets run thru this wringer(like employers go thru every week) will you see enough opposition to enact real and positive change.
Oh,yeah..end all welfare and unemployment payments too.

Eric Bryant
July 27, 2010, 20:54
Originally posted by chrsdwns
I also like the idea of all Americans paying income taxes. I don't like the idea of close to 50% of Americans not paying net income taxes, because higher taxes for the "the other guy" is really easy when you don't have pay them too.

The bottom 50% only earns 12% of the total gross income in the US. There's just not that much income to tax in that group. By contrast, the top 1% take home nearly 23% of the total gross income, and the top 10% of wage earners get 48% of the gross income. Why tax the rich? Simple - they have the money, and there's enough concentration of wealth that it's easy for the have-nots to form a populist movement (keep in mind, however, that the "haves" do a nice job of controlling the political discourse).

I'm firmly convinced that it's only possible for a democracy to have sane tax policy when there is a reasonably even distribution of wealth. If most of the voters have a nice chunk of the pie, it becomes much more difficult to form a tax structure to go after someone else's piece. I don't know how to get back to that within our current economy structure, however - I think that once the middle class loses control over the majority of the income, then things devolve into a battle between socialism and corporatism. It's my opinion that we're seeing the opening shots in that conflict.

chrsdwns
July 28, 2010, 12:29
The problem is that when a person does not pay taxes, they do care if taxes are raised and are in fact biased towards taxes for others since they do not pay taxes themselves and because they may receive more government entitlements from the tax increases on their fellow citizens.

This same class of people does not always have the financial sophistication to connect the impact of tax increases on companies and other people to higher prices paid by themselves.

Higher taxes and costs mean higher prices for goods and services to all - even those who do not pay taxes. Many people seem to feel that if you pump the water supply from somebody else's side of the lake that it won't effect their water level or water supply

Eric Bryant
July 30, 2010, 08:31
Originally posted by chrsdwns
The problem is that when a person does not pay taxes, they do care if taxes are raised and are in fact biased towards taxes for others since they do not pay taxes themselves and because they may receive more government entitlements from the tax increases on their fellow citizens.

Agreed completely. As I stated above, if the majority of the citizens see enough income to be affected by the various taxes on earned income, dividends, and capital gains, then they will vote the "right way". If the majority of the citizens find themselves unaffected by tax cuts, then don't expect those cuts to last for long.


This same class of people does not always have the financial sophistication to connect the impact of tax increases on companies and other people to higher prices paid by themselves.

Looking at this from another perspective - if you didn't see a net indirect gain from the Bush tax cuts (in the form of better wages from your employer, or better investment opportunities), and all you observed was ten straight years of deficit spending and growth in the national debt, then would it take "financial sophistication" to support further tax cuts?


Higher taxes and costs mean higher prices for goods and services to all - even those who do not pay taxes. Many people seem to feel that if you pump the water supply from somebody else's side of the lake that it won't effect their water level or water supply

Agreed on this point - but the contrary case (lower taxes leading to lower prices and higher growth) must also be true in order for people to support tax cuts. I don't think that the majority of voters would find this to be the case, and I haven't seen any empirical evidence presented by supporters of the tax cuts that would support further tax cuts (and no, someone drawing a Laffer curve on a dimensionless set of axes does not count).

chrsdwns
July 30, 2010, 21:16
1) Lower taxes make the economy stronger which improves every ones finances and provides more and better jobs for all Americans

2) Exclusive of any cost reductions, if you have more money to spend because you don't pay it in taxes your purchasing power is higher.

3) Competition ensures that eventually, lower taxes lead to lower prices.

Eric Bryant
July 30, 2010, 21:46
Lower taxes as a stimulus measure is a great concept - if the taxes are then adjusted during better times in such a way to generate a budget surplus (or at least reduce deficit growth below the rate of inflation) in such a manner as to enable those lower taxes during a future "rainy day". It should be obvious that we have failed to follow this plan.

At this point, it would seem as if we are screwed. Higher taxes will likely indeed inhibit growth and decrease consumer demand. Lower taxes will likely not increase growth to the extent that the lower rate will be offset by increased productivity. Once the world figures out that our rate of deficit spending is unsustainable, then it will be time for austerity - higher taxes combined with much lower amounts of government spending. That'll suck for several generations.

101ABN327
July 31, 2010, 10:56
Is this the "change" we were told to believe in? Black jesus is a real credit to the legacy of Lenin and Marx...:rolleyes:

ggiilliiee
July 31, 2010, 14:08
if ya have enough money to buy a male hooker at a republican "family values" convention ...whats another 1000 bucks .;)

Eric Bryant
August 02, 2010, 20:16
David Stockman - director of OMB under Ronald Reagon - weighs in on the tax-cut debate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html

If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion. That’s a Greece-scale 120 percent of gross domestic product, and fairly screams out for austerity and sacrifice. It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.

More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy. Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

:bow:

The article is full of salient points. Of note is the penultimate paragraph:

It is not surprising, then, that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street casino — received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent — mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy — got only 12 percent.

... and that is why the rich will not escape a tax increase. I don't particularly care for that, but such is the penalty of grossly uneven wealth distribution.

MtnWulf
August 02, 2010, 20:48
Everyone needs to remember that the tax code is NOT about revenue, it is about control and power.

With a hefty tax hike for the lower incomes, from 10% to 15%, it will help to keep the masses just that, the masses. It will block upward mobility for Americans and CONSOLIDATE wealth and power at the top.

Using tax credits and deductions Obama will convince the ignorant to support his goals with their dollars. Cash for clunkers, first time home buyers credit, and now, a $7500 credit to buy a piece of shit car made by Obama Motors that only goes 40 miles.

Most people have been taken in by the Marxists class warfare, and want to see those richer than them "punished". Useful idiots.

wileycsg
August 02, 2010, 22:50
Originally posted by MtnWulf
Everyone needs to remember that the tax code is NOT about revenue, it is about control and power.

With a hefty tax hike for the lower incomes, from 10% to 15%, it will help to keep the masses just that, the masses. It will block upward mobility for Americans and CONSOLIDATE wealth and power at the top.

Using tax credits and deductions Obama will convince the ignorant to support his goals with their dollars. Cash for clunkers, first time home buyers credit, and now, a $7500 credit to buy a piece of shit car made by Obama Motors that only goes 40 miles.

Most people have been taken in by the Marxists class warfare, and want to see those richer than them "punished". Useful idiots.

You just ignore anything that you you don't want to here, don't you? Under trickle down economics the middle class was hurt the most. The wealthy prospered dramatically. The truly amazing part is that even given the facts that they can convince the helplessly gullible that they are being attacked in class warfare.

TheJokker
August 03, 2010, 06:57
Originally posted by wileycsg


You just ignore anything that you you don't want to here, don't you? Under trickle down economics the middle class was hurt the most. The wealthy prospered dramatically. The truly amazing part is that even given the facts that they can convince the helplessly gullible that they are being attacked in class warfare.

once again wileycsg comes out from under his rock to attack conservatism (in this case reagan conservatism). as somebody who grew up in the 50's and 60's and started working in the 70's i can say you are wrong. jimmy carter hurt business and reagan helped business. growing business grows jobs. the middle class has been hurt by affirmative action and liberal social engineering. when you try and redistribute wealth from the "rich" to the "poor" you change the trickle down equation. you divert the trickle down from the middle class to the poor. the poor are leaches on the system. the poor are non-producers. the middle class contribute to america. they earn what trickles down.

wileycsg = super liberal

wileycsg
August 03, 2010, 08:07
Originally posted by TheJokker


once again wileycsg comes out from under his rock to attack conservatism (in this case reagan conservatism). as somebody who grew up in the 50's and 60's and started working in the 70's i can say you are wrong. jimmy carter hurt business and reagan helped business. growing business grows jobs. the middle class has been hurt by affirmative action and liberal social engineering. when you try and redistribute wealth from the "rich" to the "poor" you change the trickle down equation. you divert the trickle down from the middle class to the poor. the poor are leaches on the system. the poor are non-producers. the middle class contribute to america. they earn what trickles down.

wileycsg = super liberal

What a surprise. My personnel troll is here and wrong as usual. Just like when he claimed that rising imports from a sinking dollar would keep the economy strong and that the banking sector was too small to cause any problems.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Sorry loser, but every statistic shows you once again to be "the fool". Yes, the democrats are guilty of trying to make it so that the poor should live the same lifestyle as the middle class and this is wrong. However, this isn't what causes the proportion of wealth of the wealthy to grow at exponential rates while the middle class loses. The republican party can count on so mantra repeaters such as yourself but will continue to diminish if it sticks to the failed trickle down economy.

thejokker=little Eric Cartman

ggiilliiee
August 03, 2010, 10:23
reaganomics ...ya i remember that ...gas lines ...hyperinflation...lousy pay scales ...but then im sure your nobel prize (walmart) in economics will help .....and ill bet ya live on the gulf too huh .....get your welfare BP checks yet ??.

.by the way, fisherman ...what happened to your unemployment..?? ..usually if ya work .make money .and "pay taxes" ...ya shouldnt need money from folks who YOU told ta DRILL BABY DRILL...whats the problem ....sounds like commie socialism ta me free ride and all that ......didnt claim the $$$$...didnt pay your fair share ???.??...its just a little oil .aint gonna hurt anything ....nobody here eats trash fish or mudbugs ...who cares ...


turn the FOX crap off and wake up people ..good god .......

dakdak
August 03, 2010, 11:18
ggiilliiee,

Hyper inflation did not occur in the Reagan era.

The economy began to tank under Jimmy Carter...I know...I was there.

Monopoly Capital is necessary for the creation of a socialist state. That is why capitalists who want NO competition are happy to use governments to eliminate the free market. That is why national socialists worked with selected capitalists and why International Socialists have always worked with selected capitalists for external funding to prop up their commie governments.

You should read the "Anti-Capitalist Mentality". It may help you expand your horizons.

And, when you talk about the graduated or "Progressive" income tax you should study the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto before speaking about it. When you get to the plank about the progressive income tax get back to me.

wileycsg
August 03, 2010, 18:13
Originally posted by dakdak
ggiilliiee,

Hyper inflation did not occur in the Reagan era.

The economy began to tank under Jimmy Carter...I know...I was there.

Monopoly Capital is necessary for the creation of a socialist state. That is why capitalists who want NO competition are happy to use governments to eliminate the free market. That is why national socialists worked with selected capitalists and why International Socialists have always worked with selected capitalists for external funding to prop up their commie governments.

You should read the "Anti-Capitalist Mentality". It may help you expand your horizons.

And, when you talk about the graduated or "Progressive" income tax you should study the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto before speaking about it. When you get to the plank about the progressive income tax get back to me.

dakdak, the years seem to have clouded your memory. Things started to go down at the end of Nixon. Ford: remember WIN buttons? Matters peaked under Carter.

TheJokker
August 04, 2010, 06:55
Originally posted by wileycsg


What a surprise. My personnel troll is here and wrong as usual. Just like when he claimed that rising imports from a sinking dollar would keep the economy strong and that the banking sector was too small to cause any problems.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Sorry loser, but every statistic shows you once again to be "the fool". Yes, the democrats are guilty of trying to make it so that the poor should live the same lifestyle as the middle class and this is wrong. However, this isn't what causes the proportion of wealth of the wealthy to grow at exponential rates while the middle class loses. The republican party can count on so mantra repeaters such as yourself but will continue to diminish if it sticks to the failed trickle down economy.

thejokker=little Eric Cartman

wileyscg = stupid commie liberal

the housing market crashed in late 2007 yet the money crunch did not occur until late 2008. why? because exports were rising sharply. why did the money crunch occur? maybe because of a sharp drop in a major currency and commodity (euro and oil) "exactly" as i predicted.

for decades the republicans worked to support the interests of business while the democrats were the defenders of the middle class. it was a political dynamic that worked until radicals hijacked the democratic party and abandoned the middle class in favor of minorities and feminists.

in typical wileycsg fashion you make wild unsupportable claims. let’s look at some facts:

ratio of hourly workers to ceo pay

http://www.epi.org/images/snap20060621.jpg

we can see "no" sharp increase in ceo compensation during the reagan years yet a major increase during the clinton years. we see a sharp drop when bush takes office but it begins to rise as bush weakens in power.

america business can support a strong middle class "or" it can support the elimination of the differences between the lower and middle classes but there are not enough resources to do both. america has always been about equal oppurtunies to "earn" a better life yet "your" team has forgotten about the middle-class in their grand socialist designs. which way should we go? america will be making the choice at the polls with november and "your" side will be losing.

TheJokker
August 04, 2010, 06:59
Originally posted by wileycsg


dakdak, the years seem to have clouded your memory. Things started to go down at the end of Nixon. Ford: remember WIN buttons? Matters peaked under Carter.

the years seem to have clouded your memory. liberal JBL initiatives and the expense of the vietnam war started to upset the economy. carter accelerated that process dramatically.

liberals = poison pill economically.
wileyscg = liberal

wileycsg
August 04, 2010, 21:10
Originally posted by TheJokker


wileyscg = stupid commie liberal

the housing market crashed in late 2007 yet the money crunch did not occur until late 2008. why? because exports were rising sharply. why did the money crunch occur? maybe because of a sharp drop in a major currency and commodity (euro and oil) "exactly" as i predicted.

for decades the republicans worked to support the interests of business while the democrats were the defenders of the middle class. it was a political dynamic that worked until radicals hijacked the democratic party and abandoned the middle class in favor of minorities and feminists.

in typical wileycsg fashion you make wild unsupportable claims. let’s look at some facts:

ratio of hourly workers to ceo pay

http://www.epi.org/images/snap20060621.jpg

we can see "no" sharp increase in ceo compensation during the reagan years yet a major increase during the clinton years. we see a sharp drop when bush takes office but it begins to rise as bush weakens in power.

america business can support a strong middle class "or" it can support the elimination of the differences between the lower and middle classes but there are not enough resources to do both. america has always been about equal oppurtunies to "earn" a better life yet "your" team has forgotten about the middle-class in their grand socialist designs. which way should we go? america will be making the choice at the polls with november and "your" side will be losing.

You really aren't a very bright person, are you? What the heck does a graph of CEO to average worker pay have to do with trickle down economics? Let's see. What would give a good picture of disparity in wealth. Hey maybe the link that I provided earlier shows just that and not something totally unrelated. BTW, Bush didn't weaken in power in 2002 you moron. That's when he held the greatest power.

As to your other nonsense, I thought I stated pretty clearly (at least to the literate) that I disagree with the dems trying to elevate the poor to the same lifestyles as the middle class. As far as November goes, I'm fairly happy. If the R's take a slight control of the House and the D's keep a slight control of the Senate things should be the best that we can currently hope for.

Also, your graph only shows pay and not total compensation so even your unrelated point is worthless.

Skilter
August 04, 2010, 22:10
I don't know about you... But I was doing better under Busheconomics than now for damn sure.

Bush managed his way out of the .dot com bubble crash, the 9/11 mini crash and we did just fine. Now, we get this socialist in the office and he can't manage anything but Expedia.com and GolfQ.com. Seriously, does the dude ever work?

TheJokker
August 05, 2010, 07:03
Originally posted by wileycsg


You really aren't a very bright person, are you? What the heck does a graph of CEO to average worker pay have to do with trickle down economics? Let's see. What would give a good picture of disparity in wealth. Hey maybe the link that I provided earlier shows just that and not something totally unrelated. BTW, Bush didn't weaken in power in 2002 you moron. That's when he held the greatest power.

As to your other nonsense, I thought I stated pretty clearly (at least to the literate) that I disagree with the dems trying to elevate the poor to the same lifestyles as the middle class. As far as November goes, I'm fairly happy. If the R's take a slight control of the House and the D's keep a slight control of the Senate things should be the best that we can currently hope for.

Also, your graph only shows pay and not total compensation so even your unrelated point is worthless.

do you deny there is a correlation between pay and total compensation? does not an increase in the ration of hourly compensation to executive pay illustrate the disparity in wealth? if bush was so powerful why were the democrats so effective in blocking his initiative to reform fannie may and freddie mack in 2003 to deflate the housing bubble in a controlled manner?

democrat control of the senate will insure that necessary financial reform will "not" occur and should not be considered acceptable by anyone who is not a liberal.

you have a long history of attacking republicans/conservatives and defending liberals and the initiatives. if you don't like the reputation you have "earned" than perhaps you should consider some behavior changes...

wileycsg
August 07, 2010, 07:55
Originally posted by TheJokker


do you deny there is a correlation between pay and total compensation? does not an increase in the ration of hourly compensation to executive pay illustrate the disparity in wealth? if bush was so powerful why were the democrats so effective in blocking his initiative to reform fannie may and freddie mack in 2003 to deflate the housing bubble in a controlled manner?

democrat control of the senate will insure that necessary financial reform will "not" occur and should not be considered acceptable by anyone who is not a liberal.

you have a long history of attacking republicans/conservatives and defending liberals and the initiatives. if you don't like the reputation you have "earned" than perhaps you should consider some behavior changes...

Aside from your other silliness, here's something that should (but probably won't) put an end to this one of your mantras.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-1/hr1461sap-h.pdf

HR1461 was the House version of S190. It would seem that S190 never made it out of committee because Bush wanted it that way. Let the spinning begin.

chrsdwns
August 09, 2010, 19:47
What happened under Bush is really irrelevant and who is to blame really does not matter anymore. All that matters is how we move forward from this point on.

Pretty much everything that has been done since Jan 20 2009 has been an absolute disaster which has worsened our economy and squandered trillions of borrowed assets which will drain us financially for the next decade at the minimum.

Obama has been in the White House for 2 years and the Democrats have had full control of both houses for a full 4 years and absolute, full control of both houses for the last 2 years due to the overwhelming majority they currently enjoy.

They own the economy 100% by now and I am really tired of them trying to blame Bush for their destruction of our economy with their insane policies.

Most all of the really destructive actions have occured under the Democrats or Obama's watch - thats a fact.

TheJokker
August 11, 2010, 06:56
Originally posted by wileycsg


Aside from your other silliness, here's something that should (but probably won't) put an end to this one of your mantras.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-1/hr1461sap-h.pdf

HR1461 was the House version of S190. It would seem that S190 never made it out of committee because Bush wanted it that way. Let the spinning begin.

let the spinning begin?

liberals blame bush for everything. wileycsg blames bush for everything ergo wileycsg = liberal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_National_Mortgage_Association

On September 10, 2003, the Bush Administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. Under the plan, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set capital-reserve requirements for the company and to determine whether the company is adequately managing the risks of its portfolios. The New York Times reported that the plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is broken. The Times also reported Democratic opposition to Bush's plan: "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." [16] Congress, controlled by Republicans during this period, did not introduce any legislation aimed at bringing this proposal into law until the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which did not proceed out of committee to the Senate. [17]

On January 26, 2005, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (S.190) was first introduced in the Senate by Sen. Chuck Hagel.[18] The Senate legislation was an effort to reform the existing GSE regulatory structure in light of the recent accounting problems and questionable management actions leading to considerable income restatements by the GSE's. After being reported favorably by the Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in July 2005, the bill was never considered by the full Senate for a vote.[19] Sen. John McCain's decision to become a cosponsor of S.190 almost a year later in 2006 was the last action taken regarding Sen. Hagel's bill in spite of developments since clearing the Senate Committee. Sen. McCain pointed out that Fannie Mae's regulator reported that profits were "illusions deliberately and systematically created by the company's senior management" in his floor statement giving support to S.190.[20][21]

At the same time, the House also introduced similar legislation, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 1461), in the Spring of 2005. The House Financial Services Committee had crafted changes and produced a Committee Report by July 2005 to the legislation. It was passed by the House in October in spite of President Bush's statement of policy opposed to the House version.[22] The legislation met with opposition from both Democrats and Republicans at that point and the Senate never took up the House passed version for consideration after that.[


summary:

1) bush advocates comprehensive reform of fannie may and freddie mack to deflate the housing bubble in a slow controlled manner.

2) democrats lead by wileycsg's state representative opposes the measure and promises a congressional battle

3) republicans draft a bill they believe will run the liberal gauntlet.

4) other republicans realize that the bill has been neutered and is too weak to accomplish anything and abandon the fight.

barney franks = liberal from massachusetts
wileycsg = liberal from massachusetts
two peas in a pod

davedude
August 11, 2010, 08:17
Hey wiley, guess who has stopped Ron Pauls audit the FED bill?

If you guessed the most corrupt politician in the world, you would be right.

Bwarney Frwank has stopped it in committee where it will die.

Wanna add up for me the trillions this criminal has looted from the american taxpayers?

Dave Dude

juanni
August 11, 2010, 08:54
Originally posted by chrsdwns


Most all of the really destructive actions have occured under the Democrats or Obama's watch - thats a fact.

Wrong.

All of the destructive actions of excessive spending, increasing deficits, wild fiat money printing, unsustainable military spending, bailouts, handouts, expanding govt, public and corporate welfare, crony capitalism and ignoring the systemic fraud have occured under and with the consent of the 2 parties!

To believe otherwise is deluded.




..............juanni

juanni
August 11, 2010, 09:07
Originally posted by TheJokker

summary:

1) bush advocates comprehensive reform of fannie may and freddie mack to deflate the housing bubble in a slow controlled manner.



Bush the Crony Capitalist single handedly heaped the massive, $6 TRILLION fraud soaked liability of F & F on to the taxpayer without a single prosecution, claw back or anything else.


...............juanni

TheJokker
August 12, 2010, 06:54
Originally posted by juanni


Wrong.

All of the destructive actions of excessive spending, increasing deficits, wild fiat money printing, unsustainable military spending, bailouts, handouts, expanding govt, public and corporate welfare, crony capitalism and ignoring the systemic fraud have occured under and with the consent of the 2 parties!

To believe otherwise is deluded.

..............juanni

juanni = crazy villiage idiot hollering at the moon.

did you see the news? obama spent more money last month than bush in the entire year of 2007. (but obama is not the problem; it's bush)

liberals blame bush for everything
juanni blames bush for everything
juanni = liberal

chrsdwns
August 12, 2010, 08:21
Clinton Appointees independantly ran FN/FM into the ground during the Bush Administration, Coked the books and defrauded American taxpayers and took away hundreds of millions in bonuses.

juanni
August 12, 2010, 09:34
Originally posted by chrsdwns
Clinton Appointees independantly ran FN/FM into the ground during the Bush Administration, Coked the books and defrauded American taxpayers and took away hundreds of millions in bonuses.

Yes they did.
And the Bush adminstration and Justice Dept did absolutely NOTHING to stop, investigate and prosecute the fraud.

Instead they heaped the $6 TRILLION liability onto the taxpayer.

Leaving the question which is worse, a demo criminal stealing or repub law enforcement watching it with both eyes and doing nothing?



.....................juanni

juanni
August 12, 2010, 09:40
Originally posted by TheJokker


juanni = crazy villiage idiot hollering at the moon.

did you see the news? obama spent more money last month than bush in the entire year of 2007. (but obama is not the problem; it's bush)

liberals blame bush for everything
juanni blames bush for everything
juanni = liberal

I guess no matter how many times I "holler" it, you will never get it.

Anyways, here goes.....

BOTH PARTIES ARE THE PROBLEM!!!!

Because they are both the same party of
Big Govt/Big Spending/Welfare/Warfare got it?

And that is why we are bankrupt.


.............juanni

gates
August 12, 2010, 11:19
yep! anyone happen to catch the earthshattering revelation by the IMF the last few days - THE U.S. IS BROKE! - shocking, whoulda thunk it? Denninger has been screaming this for the last 3 years.

for all you Denninger bashers - might want to keep an open mind - the dudes a bit unhinged but he flat has the math figured out and it says we are FUKED.

juanni
August 12, 2010, 12:11
Originally posted by gates
yep! anyone happen to catch the earthshattering revelation by the IMF the last few days - THE U.S. IS BROKE! - shocking, whoulda thunk it? Denninger has been screaming this for the last 3 years.

for all you Denninger bashers - might want to keep an open mind - the dudes a bit unhinged but he flat has the math figured out and it says we are FUKED.

Yes, it is way past time to start talking about DEFAULT and slashing our federal govt in half or even more to something sustainable that doesn't depend on borrowing.

Of course that would mean ignoring the status quo fools that think there is plenty of time and a little reduction here, a little change there, perhaps following a Ryan Roadmap, a bit more stimulation, a tax break or moving a few grains of sand around the beach will resolve anything with the closing fast economic tidal wave.



..............juanni

gates
August 12, 2010, 12:26
IMO the ONLY way to avoid this FOR A WHILE is to reflate the credit bubble or blow a new one RIGHT NOW - no way - no how - what is most interesting is that I don't even feel a sense of schadenfreude regarding Jokkers pollyanna pie in the sky"everythings gonna be alright" denial of whats coming - there is NO new bubble to blow (that J6P can participate in)- there is NO new way to expand credit to avoid the collapse that is coming - and NO it WONT be like the last depression it will be much MUCH worse for many many reasons -

gates
August 12, 2010, 23:52
cricketts... buckle up boys - hope your retirement accts are in MM's or short term T's.

TheJokker
August 13, 2010, 07:04
Originally posted by gates
IMO the ONLY way to avoid this FOR A WHILE is to reflate the credit bubble or blow a new one RIGHT NOW - no way - no how - what is most interesting is that I don't even feel a sense of schadenfreude regarding Jokkers pollyanna pie in the sky"everythings gonna be alright" denial of whats coming - there is NO new bubble to blow (that J6P can participate in)- there is NO new way to expand credit to avoid the collapse that is coming - and NO it WONT be like the last depression it will be much MUCH worse for many many reasons -

gates you are missing the point...

what is going to come is going to come. there is no sense wetting our pants about how bad it is going to be because nobody truly knows. there is no sense blaming the republicans because they lacked the power or political mandate to stop liberals because what is done is done. much of what is happening is apolitical: the massive disparity between the dollar and the yuan which is creating a trade deficit and a transfer of capital investment from the united states and europe to asia.

what we can do is make the best out of the bad. the liberal policies of the government did not really cause the problem but they make us vulnerable to the changing economic paradigm caused by emerging asian markets. it is time for solutions and reforming our government for the new realities. those solutions need to be dynamic and fluid but all americans are faced with a choice of two paths and like it or not those two paths are represented by two political parties.

within the republican party are leaders advocating traditional american values of fiscal responsiblity and pro business capitalism while the democratic party represents the socialist big government state. opposing one side automatically implies supporting the other side. the agenda for decades to come will be influence by a commitment to one side or the other unless we flip flop back and forth with a dysfunctional compromise.

THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES.

if we make the right choice and i believe that is the traditional pro business choice we will be in for a wild ride but there will be light at the end of the tunnel. this is a global problem and america "can" come out of this ahead of the rest of the world. it is still possible for america to position herself to maximize our chances for the next decades. it is time to lay a foundation for future growth and change.

what will be will be. our task is to concentrate on what we can do. we are lucky to be americans in america because the rest of the world will be worst off than us...

juanni
August 13, 2010, 08:01
That Jokker, never misses an opportunity to cheer on the the Grand Old Party of failure and status quo. :rolleyes:


Ah..... Jokker anybody with any sense isn't buying your claptrap
within the republican party are leaders advocating traditional american values of fiscal responsiblity and pro business capitalism

The Republican leader of the Senate, Bitch McConnell is overjoyed to support 97% of Obama's Out-of-Control Budget.
That isn't anything close to "fiscal responsibility".

But neither was the Prescription Medical Plan, TARP, Bush's spending or any of the examples of Republican fiscal "Leadership".

Peddle your defective wares elsewhere.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:




....................juanni