Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Paul Ryan is right it is about the children.

Posted 5 years ago on Aug. 11, 2012, 11:11 a.m. EST by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Paul Ryan has laid out the case; he stands for right of the children of the wealthy to inherit America verse the right of the children of the 99% to have decent jobs and heath care and maybe a few bucks when they are too old to work.

The choice could not be clearer, will we be distracted and let the future of the children of the 99% to be forever at the mercy of the offspring of the wealthy for ever, the choice could not be clearer.

Allow them to strip you of all we have built together, then when it is balanced once again, watch them scream again about Washington, bringing too much money and slash taxes once again, and the cycle repeats, till the bankers own it all.

We have been down this road, will OWS walk it again?


and this


and this


and this


then this


Before we fix it this time tell me how we don’t just do this all over again?



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 5 years ago

Thanks so much for this post, Facts-R-Fun. This issue matters big time. It will effect any progress we think we may have made. OWS made us realize who the 99% and now we also realize who the 1% are.

Romney/Ryan are the 1%, and are for the 1%, by the 1%, and will do anything it takes to give over our country to them, the 1%

WE the 99% MUST STOP THEM!!!!


Come Together NOW

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Thanks, I cannot believe that no one in the media will even talk about the summer of 2001 when we had a balanced budget and all any Republican could talk about was how Washington was raking in the cash, now we are so broke that retirement promises can't be kept? But do they even consider undoing what they did that summer, hell no they want to double down and give more to job owners in hopes that they will someday share, or so they say, of course if they were just trying to hock the country to the bankers it would look the same way, so it's hard to tell.

[-] 1 points by NLake72 (510) 5 years ago

Starve the beast isn't just a metaphor, it's been a decade long effort.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

my understanding is it started under Reagan, run up huge debt so there is no money to regulate the banks ect. seems to be working, I hear in at least one Kansas city they are no longer prosecuting domestic violence due to lack of funds


[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 5 years ago

socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

In the links you will find lots of Republicans complaining about Washington bringing in too much money when we had hardy paid down a dime, what makes anybody think they have changed? They sure don't sound like it.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

I can't believe this forum auto morphs ron paul's name

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

end US military agression

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

we may have to change out a few of the "deciders" to do it, but we will

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Lots of great information. Ex-cellent post.


[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

the cycle of cutting taxes then cutting expectations of Americans then repeat we have been doing it since '80, excerpt that time in the early 90's when we raised taxes, how'd that work out? oh yeah everybody made money and we balanced the budget.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

WE know tinkle down doesn't work. The country suspects but can't get beyond the repub brainwashing over 30 years. And therepubs on this site will simply claim Dems are just as bad when dems are complete opposite on this philosophy.


[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

when people get desperate they will seek any help even the tax cut death spiral, one of the many things that always gets to me is how some say "he will run the country like a business" and you look and ask yourself where's the capital investment? where's the R & D? where's the investment in people? Or has it really been that long since I was in business are these things frowned upon today in business? What am I saying can't I read, of course they are.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Good point. People are waking up as a result of OWS.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

The people who were given the task of asking questions became intimidated by the think tanks talking points and stopped asking them, we can change that now, no one can control what we say, the questions we ask, we don't need their permission to know things anymore, knowledge is power, we have been told that forever, what we weren't told is "we control you by controlling your knowledge" well now the genie is out of the bottle,. we control our own reporting, we ask the questions now!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

It's exciting to consider what could happen if enough people realize this. Still it will take years of hard work.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

I'm afaird you're right about that, I see points of weakness where we could break through, it involes "upsetting" something somewhere, an election, I see the attention the TEA gets when they take down a establishment GOP member, I loved what Bill Maher said about OWS pushing the Ds the same way, we need to do two things show that we can deliver seats and that we can take them, that's the short way, the long way is keep on keeping on and after all what choice do we have? we must keep on keeping on...

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

You're right. Maher has the right idea. I look at it like Progressives must put tea party like pressure on our representatives. And get 99% supporting candidates elected. Many efforts/protests occur using OWS terminology/images but do not adhere to the revered anarchist founders. Remember Anarchism allows for many tactics, and nobody owns OWS. It is evolving most people still support voting. Most want to improve the ussues that affect them, and not boycott the vote. So OWS will continue waking people up and eventually they will pressure all pols to pass progressive solutions. "you may say I'm a dreamer" JL

[-] -3 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

We also cut spending and initiated a free trade agreement in the 90's.

When we cut taxes in the 80's the economy boomed. Those are the facts.

[-] 4 points by April (3196) 5 years ago

Are you implying that cutting taxes caused the economy to boom? lol. Wait. Can't stop laughing. Ahh ha ha ha. That's a good one. lol.

Don't let supply side nonsense eat your brain. It was the monetary policy of Paul Volcker and decreasing oil prices that got the economy going again. Duh. Not lower tax rates. Double duh. Lower tax rates resulted in the tripling of debt during Reagan's term in office as he increased military spending without paying for it. Triple duh. The lowering of tax rates, the majority of which has benefitted the most wealthy, is also when income and wealth inequality starting diverging, from historically low levels, when all income groups saw prosperity, to the dangerously high levels of wealth inequality we have now. Levels of which haven't been seen in 100 years, since the Gilded Age. Sorry Cupcake, but those are the facts.

Your's was much funnier though. Got anymore funny stuff you want to lay on us Mr. Trickle-down? Oh yeah. Free trade. That's worked out really great. We just love buying cheap shit from China from workers making slave wages. Even as it has hollowed out our own middle class. Good stuff alright. Now we just have to race to the bottom of the wage scale to compete. Free trade baby! Whoot-whoot!

[+] -4 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Angry are you? yes Volcker's price rule was the primary factor in economic success just as Greenspan's loose monetary policy has caused bubbles over the past ten years. There is no doubting that monetary policy is the most important factor and one we should be worried about.

Lowering taxes dpurs economic growth. It has worked in every economy and state where it has been enacted with no other contrary policy. I am not sure how you call it nonsense since the policies have been in place as long as economics has been studied. You make quite a fool out of yourself by not knowing this.

By the way wealth inequality happened in other countries as well, even those with much more graduated tax schedules than ours. So class clown, how do you equate that. Oh wait a minute, there is one country with very little income inequality that we can admire - Greece.

How old are you - 20?

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 5 years ago

Don't be silly Daddy. You know I just turned 21. Can you pay my bar bill from last night Daddy?

Daddy: Muffy, this bar bill is $200k. I'm busy writing checks to the Karl Rove PAC and Romney/Ryan campaign right now.

Muffy: Why do you keep writing hundreds of thousands of dollars of checks to Republicans Daddy?

Daddy: Because I can. That's how we buy our legislation Buttercup.

Muffy: Neat! What kind of legislation are you buying Daddy?

Daddy: Lower tax rates mostly. And less regulation.

Muffy: But I thought you make money creating jobs Daddy?

Daddy: Not really. That's just what we tell 'the other people'.

Muffy: You mean you're not really a job creator Daddy?

Daddy: You're 21 now Muffy. It's time you know the truth. I'm only a potential job creator. If there is demand. I'm a supplier. Supply exists to meet demand. I don't create jobs for the sake of creating jobs. I only create jobs if there's demand for it. No demand, means no job creation.

Muffy: But how will you keep making money Daddy?

Daddy: Lower tax rates and less regulation of course, Buttercup.

Muffy: You're so smart Daddy. But do you ever buy legislation from Democrats.

Daddy: Sometimes. But we get a better return on investment from the Republicans.

Muffy: How come Daddy?

Daddy: Well, they actually believe that our wealth trickles down Buttercup.

Muffy: Like my $200k bar tab. That's trickle down right Daddy?

Daddy: Not really. Caviar and expensive Champagne and imported Vodka doesn't do much to circulate money through the broad based economy.

Muffy: But won't people eventually catch on to this Daddy?

Daddy: That's why I need to write all these checks to Karl Rove and Mitt Romney Buttercup. And that's why we need to keep telling people that Pres. Obama is a Muslim Socialist/Communist.

Muffy: You mean he's not really a Muslim Socialist/Communist that was born in Kenya Daddy?

Daddy: No. That's just what we tell the Jesus Freaks and gun nuts that make up the base of the Republican Party. They're the most susceptible to believing in conspiracy theories. They can't distinguish between fact and fiction and they're driven by fear. That's how Republican's get out the vote.

Muffy: Oh Daddy! You're the smartest Daddy ever!! I get it now Daddy. And that's why we keep telling people that we're going to be like Greece.

Daddy: Exactly Buttercup! That's the job of Fox News this election cycle. To say we're going to be like Greece. But don't worry Buttercup. We're nothing like Greece. Our interest rates haven't skyrocketed like we scare people into believing. Other countries are still buying our debt at very low interest rates. Greece doesn't have many resources and relatively few exports Buttercup. We're nothing like Greece. That's just what we need to tell 'the other people'.

Muffy: But why do we need to scare people Daddy.

Daddy: Because Buttercup. As we weaken the government, we strengthen our own power. The power of the wealthy and the big corporations.

Muffy: But corporations are people too right Daddy. Don't big corporations employ lots of those 'other people'.

Daddy: Mostly in China now Buttercup. We only let people work here in the US if they accept low wages and no benefits. It's called 'Right to Work' laws Buttercup. We buy that legislation too. And we keep all the gains from lower wages, higher productivity and outsourcing overseas since we bought free trade with NAFTA and gave China MFN status. Run along to your Dressage Lessons now Buttercup. And if you're a good girl I'll buy you a school district some day after we privatize education. You can use the profits to pay your own bar tabs and be a responsible wealthy member of society.

"By the way wealth inequality happened in other countries as well" Aren't you the oh so smart one Mr. Trickle-down. Golly gee whizzers Mr. Trickle-down. I had no idea there was wealth inequality in other countries!! Wow what would I do without your worldly insights Mr. Trickle-down!

You mean like this? http://www.oecd.org/social/socialpoliciesanddata/41528678.pdf

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

You should make this a post - an open letter to the public and government post. Then tweet it. This would also be good to hand out on leaflets.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

That was priceless. You should write cartoons. This souns like a doonesburyish cartoon.


[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 5 years ago

The lowering of tax rates, the majority of which has benefitted the most wealthy, is also when income and wealth inequality starting diverging, from historically low levels, when all income groups saw prosperity, to the dangerously high levels of wealth inequality we have now.

Inequality was lower... but unemployment was still much too high during the 1970's and 80's. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UNRATE?cid=32447

So that was just labour unions, while other people went hungry. Or unions going on strike, like the whole air traffic controllers thing.

Daddy: No. That's just what we tell the Jesus Freaks and gun nuts that make up the base of the Republican Party. They're the most susceptible to believing in conspiracy theories. They can't distinguish between fact and fiction and they're driven by fear. That's how Republican's get out the vote.

Q12b Would you say that your vote is more FOR Barack Obama or more AGAINST Mitt Romney?
Results shown among Obama voters
More for Barack Obama .........................................72
More against Mitt Romney ......................................22

Q12c Would you say that your vote is more FOR Mitt Romney or more AGAINST Barack Obama?
Results shown among Romney voters
More for Mitt Romney .............................................35
More against Barack Obama ..................................58


Doesn't look like much manipulation to me. People are just disappointed that the current President couldn't find a way to create jobs without more government spending.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

So whats the point of the post other than a dumb down and over exaggerated a situation

also see a whole bunch of bs in that post

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

Thanks for the laughs.

Very good, Buttercup.

[-] 0 points by agkaiser (2099) from Fredericksburg, TX 5 years ago

Thank you. I haven't had a fix of sorority speciousness for years. Loved it.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 5 years ago

In a word : "Excellent" !!! You were possibly inspired by a recent 'picture post' here on the forum of spectacular bar bills, 'inflatable yacht slides' et al. Rather than the normal and totally understandable nauseated reaction, you were instead motivated to write the above perhaps. In any case, I doff my cap.

Not easy or necessary to follow your singular forum-post and the following links are only attempting to compliment your important link and very apt modern (im)morality tale :

et veritas vos liberabit ...

[-] -1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Yes I do believe in God, you don't?

So by your comments the problem really is jealousy. You don't believe in God, don't like traditional families especially with daughters named Buffy - by the way you would hate me, I have three blond white daughters, don't liek Fox News - so I will get it from the internet blogs - and don't like corporations.

This really is your self esteem issue more than anything else, isn't it. I get it now, YOU ARE JEALOUS of anybody who does well.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 5 years ago

It's 'Muffy'. Not 'Buffy'. And how about my belief in God is none of your business. And why should I hate you? I don't even know you.

Hit a nerve did I now? Take your pathetic little sanctimony party somewhere else. I'm not your Judge. Because it makes you feel superior to spew some empty religious proclamations on an internet forum? I call bullshit. I say you're a religious fucking phony pants. I don't care that you're a religious phony pants. Go to Confession for that and say three Hail Mary's and five Our Father's.

The problem is politicians who perversely use God to gain votes. The Batshit Crazy Conservative Right Wing Nut Jobs who want God right in there in politics and legislation. Because they want the government to do the job that their church can't.

"The proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the state. " Sen. Edward Kennedy

Because of course God is Republican. Republican's couldn't manage to get elected to crossing guard without the Right Wing Evangelicals. And clearly anyone that believes in the First Amendment and the separation of church and state must be a heathen.

You with your great insights. That's right. I'm a just a jealous little heathen bi-atch because I want to see capitalism work for the majority of people. For the 50 million people that are at or near the poverty level. For the middle class whose wages have been stagnant for 30 years. Forced to rely on debt to pay for little things like healthcare and college. Then being destroyed by a housing bubble created by criminal greed on Wall Street.

30 years of economic policies that favor the wealthy. Redistribution works both ways. But that's right I'm just a jealous little bi-atch.

Do you even know the history of tax rates? After the Gilded Age led to the Great Depression top tax rates were raised to 90%. Imagine that! Taxes were raised to reduce the harmful affects of wealth inequality on society and pay for the war debt. What a fucking novel idea eh?!

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1916- 1939

Of course, there were loopholes. The top effective rate was only 60-70%. All the way through the 1960's. After WWII debt had been paid down to a manageable 30% of GDP taxes were slightly reduced. Then they were drastically reduced by Reagan. Most especially for the wealthy. And the debt tripled. Jeesh. Even Pres. Bush Sr. called it voodoo economics.

You - who still believes the myth of trickle-down. When 30 years of middle class wage stagnation says otherwise. 30 years of the rich getting phenomenally richer says otherwise. While the country ran up trillions in debt on mostly manufactured wars while we kept cutting taxes for the wealthy. wtf? And now we can't afford social programs anymore? Really?? Really.

You believe in God do ya now. The Catholic Bishops have some thoughts on the Romney/Ryan budget plan. And have a listen to the Catholic Nuns Bus Tour when you get a chance.

If you believe in a God who would balance the budget on the backs of the poor and working poor while giving tax assistance to millioniares based on the ridiculous mythical trickle down 'theory' - you can keep your so-called God Buddy. You're out of your mind. What kind of God do you believe in? Worshipping at the alter of John Galt are ya?

I just love the Draconian worldview all wrapped up in the cloak of personal liberty. Don't you?! So do the Koch Bros. But for entirely different reasons I'm sure.

The only thing between the 'liberty' to be part of the poor and working poor due to the often destructive Darwinian forces of capitalism is the government.

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

The very nature of capitalism is wealth accumulation. Capitalism doesn't need government assistance from supply side policies. You think capitalism is so weak and needy it needs government aid? Capitalism just isn't strong enough to survive with regulation and taxation that is necessary to make society liveable and civil? I'm quite sure it is. It's all about wealth accumulation. And just like a Monopoly game. When one person accumulates all the property it's game over. I'm surprised you don't get this.

Do you believe that a top marginal tax rate of say 40% - that's 40% only on each dollar over $1million - the wealthy are such fragile flowers that they will stop working or investing? What a bunch of lazy asses. To keep those rich people working, investing, 'creating jobs' (tee-hee-hee) we have to keep giving them tax incentives to get their lazy arses in gear?

Corporations are sitting on $2Trillion or so of idle cash with record profits. But you think corporations and wealthy capitalists need more government assistance? Jeesh. Talk about government dependence.

And no, I'm not angry at all. Your silly-billy mythical trickle down beliefs are amusing as hell. We're just starting to have some fun aren't we now?

You can even call me 'Muffy' if you want to. : )

[-] -2 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Well, looking at your response, it is pretty obvious that I actually hit a nerve with you - sorry.

Your comments are all over the place with very erratic thought; are you drinking or taking drugs - meth? Because this is absolutely ridiculous. The Gilded Age caused the Great Depression. Only Milton Friedman - the one who won a Noble Prize - disagrees with you. But I am sure you can find some blog from somebody who went to junior college who agrees with you.

You want a civil society but is clear from your response and use of vulgarity that you don't adhere to those rules. Sorry buddy, this is the real world, not some fantasy world, that rules on your computer and in your dreams.

Put the pipe down and go back to school, a real school this time, not a public JC.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 5 years ago

Milton Friedman! OMG. Sweetie-pie, Neoliberalism is nothing but an interim step to Anarcho-capitalism. You think it's accidental that Friedman's son is an Anarcho-capitalist.

And you imply I'm the crazy one? Either you're a freaking Anarcho-capitalist whack job or you need to wake up.

Actually I'd have a teeny bit more respect for you if you are an Anarcho-capitalist. Rather than just another useful idiot for neoliberalism.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

I wouldn't bother explaining neoliberalism to someone, who believes Milton Friedman is an iconic source.

Though I generally disagree with anarcho-capitalists, I agree with and respect many of their positions. I mean capitalists and communists have a lot to disagree about, but on the anarchism part we agree; central authority is anathema to freedom, however one chooses to define it.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 5 years ago

He probably doesn't know the first thing about Karl Marx (prescient sage?) either.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

Most people only know what the ruling class has told them about Marx; that he's the devil in disguise. Too bad that so many don't bother to pick up a tract or two, like The Communist Manifesto, and learn for themselves.

Then, if they wanted to discuss Marxism we'd all be talking about the same theory of the political economy.

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

You mean the one who wrote the blueprint that became the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and the former China were people died trying to get out of there and starved. That one?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 5 years ago

It's sad how you think you know what you're talking about.

'What happened in all of these places where it was tried?' Nothing. Because Marxism hasn't been realized (yet). You're likely referring to Leninism.

Marx believed that socialism would evolve from the inevitable result of capitalism destroying itself. Through it's own inherent forces. The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Capitalisms inevitable wealth inequality would be so extreme that it would no longer be able to sustain itself. When wealth ineaquality would become so high, and the wealthy ruling class comes to depend increasingly on lower wages and higher levels of exploitation of society to maintain their wealth. Depending further on reducing government regulations. And the less restrictions placed by government on the market, the more quickly capitalism would self-destruct. The increasingly opposing forces between the wealthy ruling class and the underclasses would pull itself to such extremes that capitalism would destroy itself. Which would then give way to socialism.

'What the bourgeoisie...produces, above all, is its own grave.'

So rather than socialism being accomplished by the Bolsheviks, Marx believed it would be accomplished by the capitalists. Just as capitalism was born of fuedalism, socialism will be born from capitalism. And can only be successful beginning with a highly advanced society. Advanced captialism creates the neccessity and conditions for successful socialism.

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

So what you are saying is that when people tried it a little bit they didn't like it. Good luck trying to get it implemented. People don't want to live under a tyrannical system.

Marx was wrong, the poor don't get poorer, they get richer. Their standard of living goes up. More people have come out of poverty in the past 30 years than any previous time. All due to capitalism.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 5 years ago

Wow !!! Wouldn't you consider making a 'forum-post' of that please !! These days, I seem to feel ever more contrite about how I have addressed you in the past with every good comment of yours that I read, of which there are several more here on this thread !

For what it is worth, I think I might be trying to say sorry to you actually.

multum in parvo ...

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 5 years ago

That's the one. The one that also discussed how wealth accumulates and the wealthy will oppress and exploit labor and the working class. Because capitalism is based on wealth accumulation and labor exploitation is inherent in the system. There's no other way for it to go. And the wealthy will come to rule the working class.

Kind of like how multinational corporations exploit the slave wages in China. Kind of like the way the interests of the wealthy and corporate profit seeking needs dominates the political and legislative process. Who do you think is running the joint Cupcake?

Corporations don't want to do the hard work of making profit on their own. They want cheaper and cheaper labor. And corporate welfare in the form of less regulation, and lower tax rates. Why should they work for their money? When they can buy corporate welfare from the government with high rates of return and low risk. Capitalists aren't stupid. They figured out how to make alot more money than just going about their own business back in the 70's. And they've bought themselves things like the repeal of Glass Steagall, NAFTA and MFN Status for China. Those smart capitalists! It's worked out really well for them.


[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Well he doesn't have a very good track record infact, I would say it is really bad. What happened in all of these places where it was tried, what was the unemployment rate? More importantly, why were so many people risking their lives to leave if it was such as utopia.

How old are you that you have such bad use of the English language. Did you go to high school or college or was it a struggle. You must be a child of the internet.

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Well, your brand of economics hasn't worked and Milton Friedman's has so yes, you are the crazy one, and millions of people in China, the US and all over the world agree with me. Of course I could ask you to back up your arguments with the math...

Nice way to use the word "idiot" after you ask for civility.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 5 years ago

China's employing neoliberal policies now? That would be news to the Communist government there. It's State run capitalism dodo brain. Practically the polar opposite of neoliberalism. Jeesh. Do a tiny bit of research before you don't know what you're talking about.

Keynesian policies ended the Great Depression Darling. The biggest government spending program in history. A little thing called WWII. Which helped ease the transition of society from agrarian to industrial. Now. We can have a very painful and slow transition from a manufacturing to a service driven/knowledge based economy, or... wait for it.... wait for it..... the government! ( I know horror of horrors!) the government can help make that transition less painful. There is nothing nothing nothing that we can do about the debt in the short term. Unless you're an utterly cruel and heartless kooky lunatic. Even the evil maniacal Ryan/Romney budget plan doesn't produce a surplus until 2040. Austerity never ever ever ended a recession or created job growth.

Extreme wealth inequality creates economic (not to mention political) instability. It destroys growth. It doesn't create growth. Holy hell. Wake up. Taxes were raised sharply on the weatlhy during the Depression, steep progressive tax rates, which resulted in the lowering of wealth inequality. It was government spending and wealth redistribution that led to the period of greatest sustained prosperity.

Just like a Monopoly game. The person with all the property has to redistribute money to the other players to keep the game going. I don't know how to make it any more simple for you. That's the only way to keep capitalism, as we know it, going. Or it will exhaust and murder itself. Because wealth naturally concentrates upward. 'Your brand' of economics just helps move that along more quickly.

When the wealthiest 20% own 80% of the nations wealth. How the hell do you think that's a sustainable trajectory? When their continued wealth is dependent on the spending of those below them. Their income is the other's spending.

More supply side policies will do nothing but make the rich richer. Demand creates the necessity to increase supply which leads to job creation. Supply is not constrained. There is plenty of available capacity. It's not a supply problem for fucks sake. Why would you advocate a supply side solution when it's not even a supply problem?

Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Mundell said 'during periods of crisis, sometimes you have to be a supply-sider, sometimes a monetarist, and sometimes a Keynesian'. Choose the right policy based on the problem rather than wed yourself rigidly to a particular ideology.

Don't be the useful idiot of the neoliberals. Next stop - Anarcho-capitalism! I don't think you're an Anarcho-capitalist. I'm guessing Tea Party knuckle-dragger.

And stop being such a cry baby over harmless name calling and a few curse words. I don't think you're anything more than a useful idiot anyway. No matter your self righteous sanctimonial bullshit. It's boring. You accused me of being a meth user. Did I whine about? Put on your big boy pants and don't be such a baby.

And btw, even many Austrian economists believe that Reagan was more of a Keynesian than neoliberal. He only talked like a neo-liberal but walked more like a Keynesian. They should know.




[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

I'm not sure of what your idea of working is. Milton Friedman's type of economics is exactly what landed us in this pickle. Good lord, you can't possibly assert that all is hunky dory in the land of voodoo economics.

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Our primary economic problem is too much debt which comes from credit being to cheap. A sound monetary policy based on a rule is the overriding policy that supply side economics espouses. We haven't had that for the last ten years, at least.

The Keynesian form of government controlled economies very rarely work.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 5 years ago

'Classical economics has worked everywhere'. Classical Adam Smith style economic theory is not the same as neo-liberalism.

Adam Smith believed that government has a role in providing certain public goods for the benefit of society. Like schools, infrastructure, and social welfare. He supported government provided education, government regulation and progressive taxation.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.

He believed in government intervention - ''especially when the object is to reduce poverty.''

He believed in regulation - ''When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.''

It's the neo-libs who have turned poor Adam Smith into a socialist/communist. It's the neolibs who believe in eliminating government's role and government intervention, eliminating regulation, eliminating progressive taxation. Privatizing all public goods and services. Next stop - Anarcho-capitalism!

We'd do much better to get back to classical economics.

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

You have created your own nomenclatures that I don't agree with.

Of course government has a place in society, I neve said it didn't, but because there is no competition it cannot improve itself like a corporation can. So when government does it, it usually does it poorly.

Right now as a % of GDP spending is close to 24% whiel historically it has been around 17-18%.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 5 years ago

'Of course government has a place in society, I neve said it didn't'. You mean 'never'. Fixed that for ya.

It doesn't matter if you think government has a role in society. Neoliberal policy makers (Ryan/Romney) and others want to eradicate the role of government in favor of private entities, to the greatest extent possible. And by supporting supply side policies, which is the basis of neo-liberalism, you're helping to achieve the agenda of negating government's role in society. Next stop! Anarcho-capitalsm.

Meanwhile! The knuckle-draggers want to starve the government of money. The knuckle-draggers and neo-liberals - the love match made in disasterous economic heaven. As the knuckle-draggers starve the government of money, especially for essential services like police, firemen and teachers This is just what is needed to fulfill the desires of the neo-libs. Who then rush to save the day, 'See! Public functions don't work!' And their wet dreams of removing government, and privatizing every public service they can get their hands on is realized. Because private entities are perfect. Private entities never fail. Private entities always perfectly fulfill market and societies needs. They would never fail their shareholders. They are never bloated, corrupt or inefficient. And they surely would never contribute to a meltdown of the economy or breakdown of society.

You said - 'Lowering taxes dpurs economic growth'. You mean 'spurs'. Fixed that for ya. Implying that it has always worked. In every circumstance. Without fail. There is mountains of economic evidence that trickle-down is nothing but a lame fallacy. Just as Reagan's tax cuts didn't produce economic growth (but rather it was Volcker's monetary policy and lower oil prices), but increased the debt. Just as Bush Jr.'s tax cuts didn't produce economic growth. But rather more debt. You can't possibly be so dense. Then again.... sadly.... knuckle-draggers usually are.

How come you like being a knuckle-dragger?

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

I'm the knuckle-dragger, hardly. You couldn't even walk on the campus of some of the places I have studied.

Neoliberal is your term. If you knew anything, it is called classical. Yes government should be eradicated as much as possible as any entity that doesn't have competition will not do it well.

The growth in the 80's was primarily due to good monetary policy. This is the number one factor in any economic success. However, lowering tax rates helped reduce the inflation by spurring growth. Yes, it works. Always has and always will.

So why didn't your TARP work, or your auto bail-out?

Since you want to correct my mistakes - it's three dots not four!!!

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 5 years ago

I call bullshit. You say: 'You couldn't even walk on the campus of some of the places I have studied'. I hear: 'blah blah blah'. Meaningless hyperbole. Only goes to show how you can't support your statements with fact, but instead resort to self-aggrandizement. Very lame.

'Neoliberal is your term. If you knew anything, it is called classical'. Holy crap you're a moron. Neoliberal is not my term. It was developed in 1938 by the German scholar Alexander Rüstow. What the hell is wrong with you?

I guess I'll have to start with simple wikipedia definitions for you.



Neo-liberal and classical is not the same. At best, it is an outgrowth of classical. But it is not the same. And it's not my term. Just as neoliberal means that ' “laissez-faire” liberalism is not enough ', eventually, neoliberalism will not be enough. Which is why it's no coincidence that David Friedman is an Anarcho-capitalist. He's just carrying his father's work to the next logical step.

I'm not your personal research assistant but I'm feeling generous today. Try to know a little bit about what you're talking about.



'lowering tax rates helped reduce the inflation by spurring growth'. Holy crap. More stupid. It did not. It was monetary policy and decreasing oil prices. We've already covered this. Volcker tightened the money supply, creating an intentional recession, to combat inflation. Increasing (doubling) the Fed Funds rate to nearly 20%. As a recession ensued, unemployment increased and inflation decreased. Then he flooded the market with money. At about the same time oil prices were coming down. This all just happened to coincide with Reagan's so-called tax cuts.

You really have a misinformed view of Reagan's economics. Not even Austrian economists agree with you. And they should know!


Hell-o! Is anybody home in there?! Get your two brain cells and rub them to-ge-ther. Pres. Clinton's tax increases were followed by increases in Gross Private Domestic Investment, increased job growth and a reduction in the debt. And overall, there has been more private sector jobs created under Democratic Presidents than Republican. And starting out with the worst financial crisis since the Depression, Pres. Obama's trajectory is still better than Bush Jr.'s. Bush Jr. reduced tax rates, lost jobs and increased the debt with unpaid for wars. Nobody does that!! No sane person goes to war without paying for it! Because he thought the tax cuts would pay for themselves! They didn't! We're gonna be paying for those trillions ($4-5) of dollars of idiocy for fucking decades.

You don't get to blame entitlement spending just because the result of Bush Jr.'s idiot economics is not readily apparent in the budget. And try to reduce the debt on the backs of the poor and working poor. As the Ryan/Romney budget plan proposes to do. Just because it gives you a hard-on to be a knuckle-dragger. Because we already have the lowest tax rates in 100 years!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125138839 http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/01/493849/obama-bush-jobs-record/

So get off the stupid-brain train. That the Reagan tax cuts created growth. It simply didn't happen.

And by the way, 'knuckle-dragger' refers to the Tea-Baggers. I stole it from John Boehner.

'Your TARP'. It wasn't my TARP. It was entirely bi-partisan. It was mostly the Tea Baggers that voted against it. That's what Boehner was referring to when he called them 'knuckle-draggers'. How do you figure TARP didn't work? Aside from the moral hazard issue. You were able to access cash from your ATM machine right? ATM's all over the country didn't sieze up and run empty did they? That means it worked.

The government invested in the auto-industry. Rather than allow more millions of people to lose their jobs. There was no private market solution. Time will tell if it was a good investment or not. But it's not as if private industry only ever makes good investments. Private industry fails all the time. That's often why they have success. But for some reason, people just like hating on the government. Republicans and the Tea Baggers especially. Even though they're a big part of it. Self-loathing is a distinguishing feature of sociopathy.

Personally I would like to see the banks dismantled. I particularly like the arguments of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas which you might find interesting if you're not familiar with them already.


'it's three dots not four'. The fourth dot implies increased emphasis. I'm surprised you don't know that.

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 5 years ago

Oh, my god, you are misinformed. You must have a Master's from Rush Limbaugh U.

In the real world supply-side economics is why we're at the point we're at. Trickle-up welfare doesn't work. The jobs haven't appeared. Haven't you noticed, or have you been too long in Oz?

[-] 2 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Classical economics has worked everywhere it's been used. Here in the US it worked wondefully until the crisis in 2008. There is no system that eliminates bubbles and excesses.

Your socialistic system does not work. Where has it worked - the Soviet Union, China, North Korea. It produces very little but a system of terror, hunger and poverty.

So Titus, why should we move to a system of terror?

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

why do we use credit at all?

except to pay someone else for having money

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

and which god would you believe in - the old testament god - the one who saved lot - i am sure you know why he was saved - don't you - you are soooo educated. dumb shit you can't put 2 and 2 together - and then you have the stupidity to quote milton on an ows site. wow - the stupidity of it all. oh, and he won a noble prize wow - just like henry kissenger - peace prize no less - and just like our war pres obama - sure the nobel is a hell of a prize. you speak for the ruling class - we do not here - try to make more sense. when you get time you can explain the causes of the depression and how we got out of it - if you need help ask john23 - he has some great ideas on the subject - very novel. and i would like to know about your god and lot

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Can't capitalize and use of vulgarity tells me a lot about your education.

The OWS is nothing but a bunch of thugs looking for a good time and I will continue to shine a light on your utter nonsense. America isn't buying it that is why you continue to lose elections. Great job in Wisconsin re-calling Walker.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

quite a non response - and your god?

[-] 2 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

You mean it's not a jumble of thought and actually uses paragraphs and the correct punctuation. You mean that type of educated response?

There is only one God and he is the one described from the first and second testament. I am a Catholic and don't use God's name in vain and definately don't use him as a tool on a internet message board.

You clearly want to use vulgarity and take this conversation to a different level instead of sticking to straight economics.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

and the story of lot? as to your economics - how did we get out of the depression - and is austerity working in spain? classical economics - wow - the stupidity of it all.

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Recovery started in 1933, decreased in 1937 but didn't really start growing until 1940. The monetary authorities loosened in 32, the bank act of 36 tightened credit and mark to market accouting started again in 37. Foreign demand for armaments began in 38 and 39.

To answer your questions, loose monetary policy and finally strong foreign demand helped the US out of the depression.

Spain cut spending and raised taxes. The government is taking the money from the people who can allocate it the best. You need to cut taxes and reduce spending so that the money is in the hands of the job creators not the takers.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

we agree here - The majority of the spending went to nothing but give aways and transfer payments. Did you forget cash for clunkers. That worked really well - i am not an obama fan. he blew it - and everyone who was paying attention knew it before he was elected. sorry but we need government - i for one am not for free market roads or police or retirement. you can vote for ryan (i will not vote for either) and we will see how 8 more years of the gop work out! george and dick did a great job last time.

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Bush was very bad, wars and increased spending. I was against the wars from the beginning.

I never thought private roads would work but now that I see the private roads and the private airports is Europe , I am a believer. They are much better run than our corrupt and incompentent systems.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

lots of people knew it was too small - Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz called for another round of federal stimulus dollars to spur the economy. He spoke Sept. 30 to the Society of American Business Editors and Writers (SABEW) at its Fall Workshop.

“We will see in the next two years the real cost of there not being a second round of stimulus,” he said. “We will see the economy slow down at a very high economic cost.”

The Columbia University professor also said that the “new normal” as far as the unemployment rate is concerned may not be the 4 to 5 percent that existed before the financial crisis in 2008, but more like 7 to 8 percent.

Unemployment is about 9.5 to 9.6 percent officially, he said, but many people who are working part-time involuntarily or who have stopped looking but want work are not counted in the official rate.

Congress passed the first stimulus on Feb. 11, 2009, approving a $787 billion bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

He said one reason that stimulus has not had more effect is that state and local governments have cut spending, undoing about one-half of the impact of the money that the feds have injected.

He said the stimulus also could have had more effect if more money had been put into making up for the shortfalls of state budgets, stopping layoffs; if less had been put into tax cuts that wary consumers just ended up saving; and if safeguards to prevent waste had not slowed the money from being spent.

Still, he said, “The stimulus absolutely worked.” Without it, unemployment could have peaked at more than 12 percent.

He said that one-fourth of Americans have negative equity in their homes, meaning that they can’t draw on their homes as a piggybank to borrow and live beyond their means. In fact, they are going to have to live below their means to pay off debt accumulated during better times.

“We likely face a marked reduction in standard of living,” he said.

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

The stimulus was 4% of GDP and spending is now 25% of GDP, whihc are both much higher than FDR. The majority of the spending went to nothing but give aways and transfer payments. Did you forget cash for clunkers. That worked really well.

Your system of government control doesn't work when you make the wrong decisions.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

i hope you read your bible since you obviously do not read history - well good history anyway. and is anyone here arguing for that little shit stain of a stimulus that obama pushed through - read about it - anyone paying attention knew that it would not do the job. not an obama fan so you can give that up. he put in place those who caused the problem in the first place - larry summers - a real dumbass - by that i mean he is dumb and an ass!

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Don't let facts get in your way, just throw out some more cuss words:

"Barack Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package, enacted within a month of his taking office in January 2009, amounted to about 4% of America’s GDP. In the Depression of the 1930s, the biggest stimulus in any year of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal amounted to only about 1.5% of GDP".

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

it is working now for the same people it worked for then - the rich that is why reagan is loved by them

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

So can't answer the question, thought so. You really don't know your economics. GDO growth under Reagan was >4% and under Obama it is <2%. Your supposed spending program should be working but it is not.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

no you do not know the story and i have insulted no god - unless infroming you that you have the same god as mohammed is an insult. and yes reagan was wrong - kennedy - now that is another story - he lowered tax rates - to what?

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

If Reagan was wrong, then I hope we can wrong again because the 80's were a great growth decade.

Kennedy's lowered the top rate from 90 to 70%. His words:

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now".

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

no time to inform you about lot - read it for yourself - it is a good story. as to the depression and the war - the story has been repeated so many times and in so many countries that even nixon said "we are all keynesians now"

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

I know the story of Lot. You are the one bringing it up which is curious since you are the one insulting God.

So Kennedy and Reagan were wrong. I don't know what they did and what they called it but I wish Big Ears would shut-up and follow it.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

the story of th edepression and ww2 is very straight forward - sorry you do not want to see that - and the story of lot is very informative - tell me why he was saved you very big strong man!

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

You obviously don't know the story of the depresson and WWII so you want ths discussion to go towards the story of Lot. You, who insulted God, in your earlier posts.

So tell me your version of Lot since you so want to.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

yes flip is right and milton is wrong - and why was lot saved - what good deed did he do? can you post it here for all to see?

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Still can't respond. Flip you are weak.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

me a dem - you are dumber than i thought - and the story of lot - do you know it - can you tell me why he was saved. what good deed did he do? are you curious since i know you do not know the story. i am not trying to debate your god on this site - just wondering if you know the story! now god says don't lie and you did - you need to atone for that - here is the lie - "US government spending rose very slightly until 1941 - it only increase by $500 million from 1932 to 1933 - and always stayed constant as a % of GDP until the war. During the war, foreign governments were larger purchasers of equipment than the US." - one should add here - on credit. here is the truth - "Government spending increased from 8.0% of GNP under Hoover in 1932 to 10.2% of GNP in 1936. While Roosevelt balanced the "regular" budget the emergency budget was funded by debt, which increased from 33.6% of GNP in 1932 to 40.9% in 1936.[72] - do the math sammy - 25 % increase - hiring people directly (how many millions - do you know - no (just like lot). not like that little shit obama - he gives money to corporations so they can hire people. pretty stupid way to do it don't you think - so management can skim 30% off the top for themselves. now we come to 1937 and the downturn - deficit reduction as you pointed out! and what realy turned it around - building tanks and blowing them up in france - and then building more - all on government spending - they gave the money to the banks and the banks loaned it back to the government - banks gotta make money somehow - sound familiar? federal spending waas over 40% from 1941 to 44! enough said - i would like to hear what you think of lot.

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

What I can tell from your spew of comments is that you have trouble focusing and truly understanding a subject.

in 1929: $9.4 billion in 1930: $10.0 in 1931: $9.9 in 1932: $8.7

Roosevelt's New Deal in 1933: $8.7 billion in 1934: $10.5 in 1935: $10.9 in 1936: $13.1 in 1937: $12.8 in 1938: $13.8 in 1939: $14.8

So now both Romer and Friedman are wrong and somebody named Flip is correct?

I am very familiar with the story of Lot so what ridiculous point are you trying to make.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

i'll go for 70% - how about you? as to the 80's - profits were up because wages were down - reagan and volker ushered in a 20 yr bull market in stocks check this out - In the United States, these policies were jump-started in 1979 by Jimmy Carter’s Federal Reserve chair, Paul Volcker. In 1979 Volcker pronounced, "The American standard of living must decline" as he ordered the "Volcker shock," monetary policy designed to reduce inflation and restore corporate profitability. The result was a worldwide recession in the early 1980s, which did indeed hurt American workers, but had a far harsher effect on Mexico (where it led to the 1982 collapse of the peso) and elsewhere in the Third World. Life-long Democrat Volcker praised Ronald Reagan’s union-busting as key to restoring profitability: After Reagan broke the Professional Air Traffic Controllers union (PATCO) in 1981, Volcker said "The most important single action of the administration in helping the anti-inflation fight was defeating the air traffic controllers’ strike".

  In 2008, shortly after his election, Obama named Paul Volcker to his economic transition team. Leading that team were Bill Clinton’s two Treasury Secretaries, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers. This pair, along with then-Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan, were architects of the deregulation that eventually blew up the financial markets in fall, 2008. They supported the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and pushed through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which included a blanket ban on government regulation of derivatives (in the process they conspired to destroy the career of Commodities Futures Trading Commission head Brooksley Bourne for warning that unregulated derivatives speculation would blow up the world financial system).
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

the indent at the start here

In 2008, shortly after his election, Obama named Paul Volcker to his economic transition team. Leading that team were Bill Clinton’s two Treasury Secretaries, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers. This pair, along with then-Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan, were architects of the deregulation that eventually blew up the financial markets in fall, 2008. They supported the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and pushed through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which included a blanket ban on government regulation of derivatives (in the process they conspired to destroy the career of Commodities Futures Trading Commission head Brooksley Bourne for warning that unregulated derivatives speculation would blow up the world financial system).

is causing the scroll over flow

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

So you agree with Kennedy's statement that tax rates matter.

So the 80's were good because profits were up and wages down, so why is it not working now? Corporate profits are at a record.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

still don't want to discuss the story of lot i see - don't blame you it is an ugly one. as to the only god - we are talking about the god of mohammed also correct - all the same people and god. as to the depression you are right - kind of. the recovery started in 33 with deficit spending - fdr's work program. the government hires people directly. another recession in 37 when the government implemented deficit reduction - sound familiar? the depression ended in 40 with - you guessed it - defict spending - war spending - government spending - just what we need today only not on war material! here is what you said - "You need to cut taxes and reduce spending so that the money is in the hands of the job creators not the takers." completely contradicted by your own history of the period - now if you want to make up some nonsense and believe it with religious faith then go ahead - talk to john23 about it all you want, just stop sending it to me. if, on the other hand, you want to talk about god then i am interested!

[-] 2 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

I am not going to debate God on a internet message board. I cna tell from your earlier messages that you are flippant and rude towards God and don't even have the decency to capitalize his name.

From Christine Romer's (Obama's Economic Advisor) "Plausible estimates of the effects of fiscal and monetary changes indicate that nearly all the observed recovery of the US economy prior to 1942 was due to monetary expansion".

US government spending rose very slightly until 1941 - it only increase by $500 million from 1932 to 1933 - and always stayed constant as a % of GDP until the war. During the war, foreign governments were larger purchasers of equipment than the US.

Flip, you are a Democrat and Romer is your economist so how can yo contradict her?

[-] -1 points by April (3196) 5 years ago

Why should job creators create jobs unless there is demand that can support increased output? Are you saying there is demand that is not being supplied currently? Are you saying that lower tax rates will create demand in the underlying economy? That could only even possibly work if supply were constrained. If supply were the problem And it's not.

I really don't think you understand basic supply and demand. You seem to think supply creates it's own demand. It doesn't. A job isn't created in the hopes that demand follows. That would be the dumbest business plan ever. Nobody does that. That only works for some innovation. And lots of times that innovation fails. Aside from very successful innovation, demand has to come first. Before a job is created.

And yeah Kennedy lowered tax rates. Because WWII debt had been paid down. And lowering tax rates from their highest historic levels is far far different than making the lowest tax rates in modern history even lower.

Shall we just keep lowering taxes until they reach zero? Every time the economy needs a little kick-start? You'd like zero taxes wouldn't you? You crazy silly little Anarcho-capitalist you. : )

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Say's Law:

"It is worthwhile to remark that a product is no sooner created than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value. When the producer has put the finishing hand to his product, he is most anxious to sell it immediately, lest its value should diminish in his hands. Nor is he less anxious to dispose of the money he may get for it; for the value of money is also perishable. But the only way of getting rid of money is in the purchase of some product or other. Thus the mere circumstance of creation of one product immediately opens a vent for other products".

It is not the government's money to take, it is the people's so yes, we should start at 0% and allocation money to those services we really want. So in the end, you don't want to work and steal people's money.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 5 years ago

I'm familiar with Say's law. It mostly relates to innovation. There is little evidence that it works on any large scale basis outside of innovation. You really think that a business person is going to increase output for the sake of increasing output because he got a tax break. When there is no demand to warrant an increase in supply and hiring an extra person(s)? Isn't it more likely that the business person will just pocket that tax break for himself?

Taxation is not stealing. You get goods and services in return for paying taxes. There is something seriously wrong with you.

Are all knuckle-draggers like you Anarcho-capitalists too?

Right. Let's start society all over again from zero. Great plan moron. Hey, I think some of the Anarcho-capitalists plan that too! Why don't you just embrace Anarcho-capitalism and admit that you're an Anarcho-capitalist. Then people will understand better the fucked up stupid crazy place you're coming from.

'we should start at 0%'. 'We' already started from zero a long long time ago. We're already at 'we'. We don't need to start from zero.
'We' does not mean 'you'. Any particular spending item you don't like, someone else does like. That's how we get to 'we'.

It's not just about you. 'We' are in this together. Get with the fucking program and stop being a freaking selfish bastard hating on government because someone once told you that government was bad. Or just admit that you're an Anarcho-capitalist already. It's fine. Some very smart people are Anarcho-capitalists. It's not that big a deal.

[-] 2 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

You have a real issue with name calling and labels.

I guess Thomas Jefferson disagrees with you:

"In France, John Baptist Say has the merit of producing a very superior work on the subject of Political Economy. His arrangement is luminous, ideas clear, style perspicuous, and the whole subject brought within half the volume of [Adam] Smith's work. Add to this considerable advances in correctness and extension of principles.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816"

Of course, businesses and people react to tax breaks since it changes their after tax return.

Taxation intended to do nothing but transfer money from one person to another is stealing and I receive no goods or services from that.

47% of all people pay no Federal tax. They are living on the dole.

Yeah, I trust Obama to make decisions. He is corrupt and gives my hard earned money to his cronyies at Solyndra.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

The solution to every single recession has always been, since the 80's, to lower interest rates.

Have a sale on the money.

Thats it. The rest is PR fluff.

The rates are at 0. Thats why there is 0 chance of us getting out of this.

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Aah, don't know the difference between low rates and sound money?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

There is a difference, obviously, they are two seperate things.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

U support Lyin' Ryan?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I thought Reagan RAISED taxes several times. You sure you got that right?.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 5 years ago

Trickle down does not work. It actually rushes up. Here are the facts:


[-] 2 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

GDP and the unemployment rate both were very good through most of the 80's, 90's and 2000's until the downturn in 2008. We can argue as to what caused this but there is no getting around that the malaise and poor economic results of the 70's were reversed.

The effect on manufacturing income is wide-spread and has happened in every country not just the US. It is probably due to the introduction of cheap Chinese labor, and the rotation of the US economy from a manufacturing economy to a service and intellectual based economy. These transistions are always painfully - note the transitions from agricultural to manufacturing - but are crucial for future growth.

The fact that both GDP growth and unemployment improved tells me that supply side policies did work.

By the way, you do realize who is supporting your "State of Working America" blog. How anybody can support Randi Weingarten and the Teachers Union after what they have done to our children is beyond me.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

The only time during the period you cite 80', 90' 2000' when real income for average Americans rose was in the 90' following "the world's largest tax increase" I feel that is a strong indicator that tax at the top have fallen too low for a healthy economy which is not surprising when you consider they have fallen from 90% in the booming 50' to 15% today.

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

What is at 15%. The highest bracket is 38%.

Spending was also at 18% of GDP during the 90s so you are willing to go back to that as well.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

If we take out all the interest we pay, since if we had stuck to rates of the 90's the debt would be paid in full now and we would be paying zero in interest, and we reduce military spending to 1992 levels, then can can see where to best spend what is left of that 18% of GDP because there would be a bunch left over.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Romney paid 13.9% on 20 million, the rate you speak of is only for working stiffs the real money is at the 15% rate only if you doing nothing for your money you pay less tax.

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

That is the capital gains rate which are gains derived from a sale of a capital asset held for longer than one year. The money that buys the capital asset has already been taxed. This is not annual income.

It is 15% for everybody save for the two lowest brackets where it is 5%.

Capital gains is completely different than income

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

The money I get in my paycheck has already been taxed too, and the long term/short term capital tax went out when the divide tax was also reduced to 15%, so that now most of the money made by the very wealthiest people pay the very lowest tax. When you consider how many corporations pay no tax at all for year after year, it is easy to see why we have so much debt. We refuse to send people to Washington with enough guts to stand up to the billionaires.

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

You don't know the difference between a dividend and a capital gain?

There absolutely is a large difference between short term and long term.

So put you rmoney where your mouth is, take your income, that has already been taxed, and buy a capital good. Guess what, you get 15% as well.

You seriously need to read up before you post, this is pretty basic.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

OK so you don't know anything about tax law, that's OK a lot of people don't. Still the fact remains that your statement that capital gains had already been taxed is nonsensical sense all money is taxed.

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Oh boy, a dividend is a payout from a corporation to it shareholders and is taxed as ordinary income - 38 percent for the highest bracket, while cap gains is a return on a capital investment made over one year and is taxes at 15 percent. So Einstein, how are they the same.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

How about that flat tax on Social Security can we at least agree on that?

First dollar to last all forms of income.

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

I believe that the SS money should be put aside and not put into the general fund.

I don't know your proposal for SS, you want to extend the tax to all income?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

those of us who are persuaded by facts are always hopeless to those of you who would rather we be immersed in decent and lies, pretty much all dividends "qualify" I don't have time to give you a whole tax course, but as you can see from the link if you need more info but dividends and all capital gains are at the 15% rate or less if you don't understand read the wiki, this is how the rich get rich paying off their buddies in congress to make sure working stiffs get paid crap and have to pay most the taxes so the mo' money can go to those that deserve it by birth right.

Let's start with flat taxing Social Security first dollar to last all forms of income, I like that it's on my profile...

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

The top 10% of the country pay for 70% of the budget so I don't see how working stiffs pay most taxes?

More money is in retirement accts so are not qualifie dividends?

Come on Einstein, you are failing here.

You get your informationf from a wiki?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Here: chart doesn't come over well but you can click a link can't you?

2008–2012 2013 - Ordinary Income Tax Rate Ordinary Dividend Tax Rate Qualified Dividend Tax Rate Ordinary Income Tax Rate Ordinary Dividend Tax Rate Qualified Dividend Tax Rate
10% 10% 5% 1 0% 10% 0%
15% 15% 5% 15% 15% 0%
25% 25% 15% 25% 25% 15%
28% 28% 15% 28% 28% 15%
33% 33% 15% 33% 33% 15%
35% 35% 15% 35% 35% 15%


You really don’t know anything do you?

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

You are hopeless. That is the difference between qualified and non qualified dividends.

Of course, people are gaming the system and a flat tax that treats it all the same will treat everybody the same but you don't want to do that.


[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 5 years ago

From the Congressional Budget Office


Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007

After-tax income for the highest-income households grew more than it did for any other group. (After-tax income is income after federal taxes have been deducted and government transfers—which are payments to people through such programs as Social Security and Unemployment Insurance—have been added.)

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.
[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Sure income went up for everybody, I don't understand what is wrong with that. Do you want it to be equal across the board?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 5 years ago

In that 28 year time span the upper 1% received 8 times the increase compared to what the bottom 80% did. The bottom 80% earn wages of about $55-60k a year or less.

I just want it to be fair. What about you?

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Of course, the people who are taking the risk are going to be rewarded more. That is the point.

Why should I care if Steve Jobs did well or Jack Welch or Kobe Bryant. Why should they pay a higer rate than me because they did better than I. I admire Tiger Woods for his work ethic.

I think it is apparent that you OWS folks want socialism, is this true? So you want everybody to be paid the same?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

you left out Paris Hilton

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 5 years ago

I think that the proper way to compensate people is by the proportion of benefit they provide. A worker who produces twice as much deserves twice the pay.

A person who produces ten times the benefit does not deserve 100 times the pay.

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

So who get to decide the benefit question, Obama?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 5 years ago

So by your logic loggers and fisherman should be the highest paid since they take the greatest risk, having the highest fatality rate of any job.

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

If they can get it, yes. It is their decision to take that risk.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Have you heard of any Republicans pledging NOT to cut taxes if the budget gets balanced again?

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Shouldn't the government always be trying to reduce the amount of money they take from the people?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

"0 points by Emalm (-16) 0 minutes ago That will never be passed here in the US because too many people believe in liberty. I am not sure how you believe that sending money to the government is going to do any good besides more corruption. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink"

The 1% have close to 60 trillion sitting in trust funds, that's pretty much all the money there is in America except for a little operating money laying around here and there, now people are either going to watch their parents starve in the streets or they are going to tax the shit out of the rich, it is only a matter of time and the longer we wait the higher the taxes must go, maybe people will be so fearful of losing that chance to maybe get a job interview that they will let their parents starve rather than tax the rich, but I don't think so.

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Trust funds, what in the world are you talking about? So you want to steal money from the people who have it to give to those who don't? Really, admit it, this is about socialism, isn't it?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

The stealing has already been done by the hacks that the 1% have been sending to Washington for past 30 years, they thought they could duck out on the bill and leave it for the little people to pay, but we're on to them and we're going to make sure they take care of their part on the way out. Now what could be more fair than that?

[-] -1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

The top 10% now pay for over 70% of the budget while the bottome 47% of all people pay no Federal Tax. So explain your logic to me, because the rich are paying more. This is nothing but a land grab.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

But the top 10% have 95% of the wealth so shouldn't they pay 95% of the taxes? looks like they're short 25%. Cough it up you rich greedy, selfish, lazy bastards!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Even more to the point they have been paying for 99.999% of the political campaigns and should be held responsible for 99.999% of the debt they ran up, after all we want people to be responsible don't we?

But you make a good point over half of Americans die with less than $10,000 to their name, while a few aquire billions, we have every right to look at that and make changes.

[-] -1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

So what is it wealth or income that you want to steal. You can't spend wealth. Nice names by the way. Do you want to bet who works harder, you or I? Did you put yourself through college part time - at one of the best universities in the nation.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

couldn't afford college. I worked full time from 17yrs old during high school @ nite and w/e to support me & my mom.

Tell me about your wonderful advantage of the finest university again. Sounds tough. Must have been horrible for you. LMFAO

(child of priviledge)

[-] -1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

You are the one who wants to talk about who worked harder. I worked while going to school, why didn't you?

The advantage I learned from my fine University is the knowledge of markets and economics and that your Keynesian stuff doesn't work. Let me clue you in, we actually did the math.

Nice curse words by the way, is that what you have to resort to. Do you drink too much as well.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Green tech, alternative is 21st century tech that China & Germany Are kickin our Ass in. It's the future & we MUST create a strong industry in the US for the sake of American workers and our environment.

Fossil fuel tech is 19th century tech that is polluting the planet. We MUST stop subsidizing that old damaging tech & invest in the future green tech.

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

You might be correct but the odds are you aren't just like many of the past decisions made by government. Just 3 years ago Obama ruled against natural gas fracking and look what is happened. We will have energy independence for close to 100 years while improving the carbon footprint. It is creating jobs and putting food on the table.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I didn't understand your comment. Sorry

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Liquidate my Real estate!! When did that become part of OWS? The 1% who destroyed the economy should be prosecuted! Not the 99%'rs who fought their way out of projects & welfare. The 1%'rs who have not sacrificed should be taxed up the ass! Thats how we attempt to address the inequity in this system.

I saw the inequity of this system 25 years ago. As such I was an "Occupier" before all of 'em. I disagree with taking what we didn't earn, or getting free things from others.

Just fair progressive taxes, smart govt investments in the citizenry, (free college, public health option, penalties for outsourcing, greentech/infrastructure job creation, and more)

I give to charity and have rented below market rates until recently (because of the Bush great recession) Thats my contribution.

And I'm a loudmouth pushing the concepts and agenda of the 99%.


[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

OWS is for socialism. You should not own real assets as the people should own that.

I am all for prosecuting those who broke the law. I am very disturbed to hear today that Justice will not pursue MF Global.

I disagree completely with government spending on green jobs. Way too much corruption and no return on investment

[-] 1 points by NoCoOptingOWS (3) 5 years ago

VQkag2 is a paid regime propagandist and this pro-war post proves it:


VQkag2 is no part of the 99% or OWS. Loretta26 tells it like it is:


Poster Madinusa sees VQkag2 for the poser he is as well:


This forum is for OWS Revolutionaries. Get the fuck out, VQkag2!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I am not part of the 1%. I have managed my situation so nicely that I used my stock investments as long as I could and sold them all slowly through the republican great recession stock market crash. My plan was to keep the portfolio and just take 10-20K each year. because the tax system benefits that kind of income right. No fica. low tax rate. But that is gone thanks to Bush. And of course that level of income is nowhere near the 1% level I'm talkin about. In fact now I simple live off of rental income. also better than salary. I mean you took economics you have a business you have all kinda tax benefits. In fact I have so many valid deductions I bring my income so low that my daughter gets her state tuition paid for.

Now that is how you live without being a wage slave and not being a greedy pig. I live a very reasonable life. very little consumption, no vacations. So I wouldn't be included in the 1%.

Good luck boss. Buy real estate. Thats the ticket.

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Congratulations, you did a great job. Being a greedy big is subjective. To many here on this board you are part of the 1%. I am guessing the value of your RE is $300,000 to $400,000. You could liquidate that RE to help the OWS people who don't work and need food and booze?

Why is this option not appropriate for you?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Ok. Maybe we disagree about tax policy. Flat tax is regressive and hurts working class, helps upperclass. Sounds forbes/republican talking point. We must tax the people who have the money, the people who have sucked up all the wealth WE created. The 1% are sitting on trillions of dollars. We have been hampered by trillions in debt. TO THEM!! "treated the same"? We ain't treated the same now or in the past why start now? So 90% tax rate on $1mil income, ne deduction for the 1%. Cut taxes/debt for working class.

So Let me say. I am 49 yrs old, homeowner, have a child in state college, struggled as a child but since then only in the recent 4 years of the republicans "great recession". But I don't begrudge the wealthy in general. I just think they've rigged the system and stole the wealth we created. How old are you? Still working? Is this the economy/life you envisioned? Suburban. 2 cars, vacations every year?

And you do NOT support OWS. right?


[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

You increase the price of a good you get less of it, you raise the tax on work activity you get less of it. This is pretty basic.

So explain to me how the 1% stole the money/ Who exactly are you speaking about?

I am 49 years old as well, working harder today than I worked when I was 20 and no, life is not working out how I wanted it. But I only blame myself, nobody else, that is why I am working harder. I know I only have 25 years left to provide for my kids and I am fed up with people who are living off the dole and not working.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Well. Still working huh? I'm sorry to hear that. I did not go to a fine university and study economics, but after growing in the projects of Brooklyn on welfare, & food stamps, & medicaid I worked hard recognized by the time I was 30 that the system was rigged against the worker and invested my money in stocks and real estate.

I retired almost 9 years ago. The republican "great recession" has made things difficult but my knowledge of economics come from the street and I have chosen wisely. You have chosen poorly. I do not mean this as an insult. But certainly if someone were to depend on an economic opinion don't you think the guy who saw the system was rigged against the worker is more dependable.

We must tax the people with the money the 1%. The 1% stole it when they breached the agreement we made 30 years ago when we bought that tinkle down economics con job. The agreement was, if we:

  • Give them low taxes/low regs and they would be the job creators.


  • They moved our jobs oversea

  • Kept our wages low

  • Hiked up our cr card interest rates

  • Raided our pensions

  • Raised our health insurance premiums

  • Bought our politicians

  • Rigged the political/tax system in their favor and against us

  • Crashed the world economy

  • Took a trillion in bail outs (in only the last bailout)

  • Lost 40% of our home value

  • Created an unemployment crises going on 4 years

  • Foreclosed our homes illegally

So that is a breach of the agreement. We want our money back. All the benefits these corp 1% plutocrats recieved in the last 30 years must be returned. With interest! Nice doing business with you! 29.99% interest Thank you very much!

That should settle things.

Whatta you think?

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

No insult taken, like I said I am not envious of you that you have done well. So you made your money in stocks and real estate, which by your own definition are not hard working jobs. These are paper assets so if we are to confiscate assets why not confiscate yours and give to the real workers like me who is still wroking?

Unemployment did go down after 1980. Infact, it went back to the number we hadn't seen since the 50's when the world had to rebuild. So you want to go back to unemployment in the teens?

There is no bargain that you are going to be taken care of by somebody else. There is no fairy out there.

It sounds like to me that you are part of the 1% and should give up your money.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Hardly drink. And I'm tellin you I worked full time from 17 yrs old through the college years boyo. I could not afford a fine university like you.

And did you also have it easy after that fine university? Get a nice cushiony job with daddys help.? Get a house with a picket fence in the suburbs? And are you still working? How old are you? Mr Markets & economics.

[-] 0 points by gsw (3145) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

Me too, always working since 10 years old. For me, I don't want more for myself. Just for my kids. I want them to have an American Dream back.

Dad's connection to my job was his example of commitment and value on education. We would go to college and work through it, real work back busting kind. Then 20 years steady work post Masters Degree. Not much to show (hint: marry someone who realizes the true value money, or increase deductions for individuals and families).

However, this I know:

Massive tax favors to the very wealthiest is an obscenity There is a greater economic disparity between the very wealthy and the rest of us in this country, greater than at any time since the 1920s. And we need to get things back to the point where we're building up a strong middle class. When you hear about these massive tax favors to the very wealthiest, and not giving a break to the middle class and the poor in this country, it's an obscenity. The loss of revenues from the Bush tax cuts, which have been perpetuated now both between the Republican and Democratic parties, it's been devastating to our economy. It's been devastating to our budget. It's like we've taken out this credit card in the name of our children and just ran it up recklessly, not bringing in the revenues to help pay it down. We're paying more in interest payments every year on the accumulated debt than it takes to run 13 departments of the federal government. We can do much better than this as a country. And we, as a people, need to understand, we can do this from the bottom up. Source: Amy Goodman, Democracy Now, "Challenger for Obama?" , Dec 13, 2011 http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Rocky_Anderson_Tax_Reform.htm

We still have hope: a reasonable alternative to the crazy system (our last 12 years) Rocky Anderson is on ballot in many states, and he praised Ows as idealistic courageous and convergent with his positions (4th LINK) His strategy is through social media, as the egyptian s did, wants a revo. Against duopoly. If we met up in public forums, parks, and championed his candidacy, that's freedom of speech. How could that be shut down. And everyone emailed, wrote everyone they know, everyone in the phone book, but keep it optimistic, have kids there, etc pro family and worker.









It was cool to the public when you occupied. Real not staged. For those who know in their soul the system has deep problems, it was inspiring.

Can WE occupy central park(s) and spread the message there, even if it is daily. It was cool you were out in public standing up.

It's just whole country feels conservative, cause cons keep repeative Obama is communist.

OWS was so fast, and not well covered in main media, for most part. I think it was raising awareness, especially when the police got out of line, but now it is easy for public to ignore, and for many they may believe it has faded away:((

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Been working since then, and I struggle every day to pay the bills. I strive to provide for my family and be like some of the richest people in America. I am not jealous of their success. I just ask that I have the opportunity to work but no guarantees from the system.

I don't believe that that a central government can pick winners and losers and is just another form of corruption.

Theh government should treat everybody the same and implement a flat tax with no deductions and the same rate for all type of income and gains. You will eliminate a incentives to avoid tax and will be unable to. All of the corporations will bring their money back to the US.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago


[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 5 years ago

Just want to make sure you know even the well educated are getting screwed.


[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

I am not jealous of somebody else. I know that Steve Jobs is smarter than me and Zuckerberg is as well. Kudos to them that they were able to build great companies. I only strive to be like them but I don't want to take away their wealth because I am bitter.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 5 years ago

I'm not saying take their wealth, I'm saying don't take ours. The well educated who invested their time and money to obtain their advanced degrees, helping to increase our productivity by 80% over the last 40 years, did not share in the wealth that their advanced knowledge produced. Where is the return on their investment? It looks closer to 0% than 80%.

[-] 3 points by gsw (3145) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

If you get board, go to your state Republican Facebook page, and paste some of your favorite items onto their page. WA state repubs want to get 7000 likes. I couldn't help them, but I thumbed up some critical coments I saw. I pasted the below, and asked when the war in Afghanistan would end. I'll probably get banned. I think I'll Visit some other republican pages.

jhirsch is correct, graph clearly shows no increase in wages, adjusted for inflation, over 20 years, for Masters degree.


The rich are getting the benefits from increased productivity, at the expense of the rest.


mind-blowing-charts-senates-income-inequity-hearing Mind-Blowing Charts From the Senate's Income Inequality Hearing


Suppression of unions, and greed of the oligarchs, who are the moral equivalent of greedy pigs. They just don't know better. They're insulated from society. A lot of their wealth creation was in the financial sector, but did they really produce useful products, or lucky gamblers on Wall Street.

Also, when so much is investment, not actually money earned from work, they can pay federal tax of 13.9 percent, like Romney.

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Before the 2007 downturn unemployment was very low during the past 30 years reversing the worrisome trend that began in 1970.

During this time there have been incredible advances, almost unthinkable advances, that have occurred, including the use of the internet. During this time the availability of products at a cheap prices have been pushed to a much larher global populations. All of this came from free market economics.

With improvements comes dislocations and it is clear that advanced economies are being hurt by the cheap labor effect in China. If I had to guess what is going to happen you will see manufacturing move back to localities as expenses equalize. Mexico can already match labor costs in China due to rising rates in the latte country. This is happening muxh faster than textbooks predicted.

What I don't know and how to do it, is how to we retrain our workers for these new industries and how do we focus them on the necessary skill set. This is being handled already by the introduction and growth of night schools.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

I take it that "entitlements" are "off the table" then, since you don't consider social security to be taxes, I'm sure you don't consider social security to be spending either then.

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Social security tax is for social security. And only those who work pay that tax which is 45% of the population. What about the majority?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

so you believe that only 45% of the population have jobs?

maybe you should take some time and do some reading.....

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

From the USA Today:

Only 45.4% of Americans had jobs in 2010, the lowest rate since 1983 and down from a peak of 49.3% in 2000. Last year, just 66.8% of men had jobs, the lowest on record.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

oh the children what of the children, and why oh why can they not vote?

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

It's my children who I am most worried about and that is why I want a country that is growing and that they are not victims to a welfare state.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) 5 years ago

He isn't far off. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm/

But he is also dead wrong about who is paying for everything. Since, as he said, only those who work are paying into entitlements, the working class is paying for 42% of the budget in entitlement deductions

If what is being deducted from our checks isn't covering the entitlements budget, then we should be looking at wages because entitlement deductions are based on a percentage of what you earn.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

"the number of unemployed persons (12.8 million)"

12.8 million is not 55% of America.

How about farm jobs? some people work there I know the government don't count them but I do.

He uses numbers that include babies the only reason to do that is to distract and deceive we should inform not deceive, (which I'm sure was the goal of USA Today, as it so often is)

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Social Security is the only thing in government that has ran at a surplus the rich folk have been stealing it to cover their super low tax rates, now they don't want to pay back what they took and want to kick old folks into the streets instead.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) 5 years ago

I am aware of that. Thats why I'm making a case about who pays for entitlements. Facts, you should consider adding a blog to your daily debating. I think you could do well with one.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

ofcourse they haven't got 2 pennies to rub together

but that's because they're poor

[-] -1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Nothing but a land grab.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

The America Revolution was the largest act of wealth redistribution the world has ever known.

The Crown invested billions of today’s dollars and hundreds of years into the colonies.

The colonies pasted down through the family like any other trust fund asset.

There was no doubt that legally. Internationally recognized, King George owned America.

The Founding Fathers stole this country from him; they had some crazy idea that because they had built this country with their sweat and blood, they had more right to it than the person who had made it all possible with billions in investment, imagine that. Well I think we might be getting close to needing another revolution.

[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Yeah, we need to get people off the dole and pay into the system. 47% of all people pay no taxes.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Over 47% of Americans die with less than ten grand in lifetime savings, why should they work, they don't get nothing for it.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

How much tax should a 6 month old pay?

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

In my opinion, none since anybody below 18 years is a minor. When they become an adult, they should pay.

What about those who can't pay and can't take care of themselves - maybe 5% of the population if I am being liberal. In my opinion, the STATE should take care of them cradle to grave.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Depends on the people - the 99% ? - yep - reduce taxes - the 1% ? - yep increase taxes - by a lot.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

why should we even be talking about tax cuts?

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

So you agree, you are trying to steal from the people. The truth comes out and this is why you are losing the election.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

you are twisting his words. can't you use the truth to make your points.?

Honesty, look it up?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

You can shove those words back into your mouth where they belong - swallow and try not to throw-up.


[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Your nothing but a thief, a jealous one, who wants to treat people differently. Take your mean words and lose it.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Till they take nothing at all and return rule to the rightful King, I get it.

Of course we could pool our resources and build a hell of a democracy, what should we do?

[-] -1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

That is the point, the king (the government) has no money so can corrupt.

We have built a very good country employing these principles so why should we change now and risk the low growth, high unemployment, and poverty of many other countries. Are you saying we need a powerful King to have a democracy?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

You know in spite of "W" following "41" we do not have an inherited government, no the King i was referring to is the cumulative Royal Class that inherits it's birthright by being born into the "right" family.

The democratic government where the people get one vote no matter how wealthy they are is the only counter balance to the power of the Royal Class and is all that stands between us and a life of peasantry forever and ever, it has always been so let me refer you to one of my early post about when one Koch brother, err I mean one King George owned the whole thing:


[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

That is why we are trying to de-throne the King in Washington DC.We fought over 200 years ago for limited power and liberty and we will continue. Hope you are on board.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

we fought to have a voice over our government through our voting booth and dethrone the inherited wealth of the great families, the Republican Party works for their return by slashing the taxes on the wealthy while raising them on working people, the only King is the ones with 20 billion dollar bank accounts, but don't worry we will hunt them down, and de-thrown them in time.

[-] -2 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

The great families backed the revolution.

47% of all people don't pay taxes so you are wrong there.

What you are telling me is that you want to steal money from one group to give to another and then centralize power in Washington creating another King. This country wasn't founded on a strong King like government. Maybe you should move to Europe or to a country where your ideals are more in sync - France maybe?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

I was unaware that King George backed the Revolution that should be big news.

Since when was taxes stealing?

[-] -1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

The great families were American merchants.

When you take money from one group and give to another who don't pay for their services, that is called stealing. You want to raise taxes so more people, who don't pay anything into the system, can receive benefits.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

when you inherit your place in life that's called Monarchy, if we stop allowing the trust funds to rule this country we can restore democracy the first step is stop the passing of American to the children of the wealthy and restore it to all Americans so the best can rise to the top, not just those born at thee finish line.

[-] -2 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Most of the people who inherit wealth are not in the 1%.

Again why should I give my hard earned money to a government that is going to redistribute it to others.

And if the government is in control of it to pass out to whom they want, who do you think is going to get the opprtunities. It's not going to be working people and not people who didn't go to an Ivy League college - did you? - and not people from Arizona.

[-] 0 points by gsw (3145) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

alaska likes to give their people money.

The Alaska Permanent Fund is a constitutionally established permanent fund, managed by a semi-independent corporation, established by Alaska in 1976, primarily by the efforts of then Governor Jay Hammond. Shortly after the oil from Alaska’s North Slope began flowing to market through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, the Permanent Fund was created by an amendment to the Alaska Constitution to be an investment for at least 25% of proceeds from some mineral (such as oil and gas) sales or royalties.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

this is like saying "shouldn't a doctor always be trying to lower your temp?" well no, that's not the way it works...

[-] -1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

So you are saying that people shouldn't be allowed the pursuit of happiness and that the authority should take away their liberty and the ability to pursue their dreams. So should the government take all of people's money.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

I am saying balance in all things, even taxes.

[-] -1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

This country wasn't founded on a king in Washington DC. It wasn't founded on corruption and theft. Balance is another way to justify feeding a larger government and that is not the ideals of both the Delcaration and the Constitution.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

the only way to strip the Royals of their power would be a 99% inheritance tax, that would be the thing to do I think to keep democracy alive and well and to preserve freedom for all, not just those born to "good" families

[-] -2 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Why should I give my money to a central government who want to give it to people who don't work, don't pay into the system and are on the dole. What type of incentive is that?

Okay, you work and I won't and you pay me directly.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

you have hit on the problem with inherited wealth a bunch of people getting money without working for it, I think you're catching on, and the only way you get the money is if you bought a government bond, we got to use the first 15 trillion paying off the debt we ran up stimulating this economy to create those big old banks accounts and it's good we did cause we got one hell of a bill to pay, but don't worry i'm for letting the rich wait till they die to pay their share,.

[-] -1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

So you didn't want to answer my question, why should I give my hard earned money to someone who didn't work hard? This again sounds like you want something for nothing.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

half of Americans die with less than $10,000 so that a few can die with billions, I'd like to change that..

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

you're right it's not my decision it's our decision that's what democracy is all about, isn't it wonderful, when we screw up and set up an unbalance system, through democracy and a death tax we can right the ship, that's why democracy's are strong because you can fix stuff

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

That will never be passed here in the US because too many people believe in liberty.

I am not sure how you believe that sending money to the government is going to do any good besides more corruption.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

I'm not a monster, OK 99% after the first 5 million there now your kids won't go hungry, since getting a job seems out of the question for them.

[-] -1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

But it is not your decision. Should I have the authority to make decisions over your life and your off-spring?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

all resources come from the earth

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

So your answer is nobody should go to work tomorrow?

You are like to guy in Survivor who when he first arrives on the island doesn't want to pitch in a errect a shelter.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

how many things do you think you do when you're dead?

So that's my answer "none" you can't take it with you.

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

That is your answer? So I shouldn't worry about my children. Maybe I should leave it up to the State to take care of them. You obviously are not a parent.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

I take it you dont have any kids?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

we have the largest military in the world by far, but the common welfare we are falling behind there if we want to honor the Constitution time to make some adjustments less military and lots more common welfare...

[-] 0 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 5 years ago

Actually this country was founded on theft. It was also founded on conquest genocide and slavery. In fact slavery is what made the US into an industrial power house.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago
[-] 1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

This country was founded on individual liberty and the idea that a central government can't take away people's liberties. I will agree with you that the Indians were conquered but that threat was always constant between themselves at the time.

Slavery was a benefit to the Southern agricultural land owners but did not help the more prosperous and industrial North.

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 5 years ago

So the cotton that the slaves produced didn't fuel the textile mills of the industrial north? I think you better crack open a history book and try again.

So your moral justification for the extermination of the native people that lived in north america is they would have done it to each other any way? Thats pretty weak.

[-] 0 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

No I am not defending the native people situation but I do understand it.

Slaves definately had a positive impact but by the time of the Civil War it was all in the Southern states. Like today cheap labor is a tremendous advantage.

This country was founded on liberty and the pursuit of happiness, first for White men and now for all. There is no doubting that there were issues along the way that we did wrong. We still have those primary qualities that we pursue and taking away my liberty to pursue my happiness defeats our central purpose.

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 5 years ago

Why do you keep saying that the country was founded on liberty when all of the founders of the country owned slaves and engaged in genocide? This country was founded on in the words of James Madison

" The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.”

In other words, wealth (“landed interests”) will be increasingly concentrated into fewer and fewer hands through markets (“various means of trade and manufactures”). The wealthy, therefore, would be outvoted in a democratic system and government would be overrun by the majority of working people. To prevent the working class from attaining political power and expropriating the property and wealth of the rich (“an agrarian law”), we have to “wisely” ensure that government “protect the minority” of the rich against the majority of the poor.

I don' t understand this slavering worship of these men and I guess I never will.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

a good point made, may I suggest the usefulness of symbols,

and even when examined it is apparent that each person is a product of their time, one hopes that things progress such that even those who were farseeing in their time, seem backward today, it is easier to see when speaking of science but the same can be said of other types of thought as well,

The point you make of the Senate is fairly made, and a fear held then and now by those processing more than they could ever fairly make, I feel a balance must be reached there are ways to determine if you are in a good spot so to speak, we have driven the scale so far in one direction with little hope of righting it (outside of OWS) that I fear the entire system is near collapse, I know we may disagree on the best next step, but in the end I hope we both want more control for the people and less for money.

[-] -1 points by Emalm (12) 5 years ago

Liberty is ingrained in both the Declaration and the Constitution.

The rights of the poor or working class if that is what you want to call them, have never been better. The history of the country is full of examples where a working class person works hard and builds wealth. Jack Welch is a great example of this.

This country was founded by and for White European men and their families. While I don't agree with slavery, I understand why it happened as common thinking was the African was inferior, and it took a lot of groundswell to change that thinking.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Thought I'd give this one another run.