OutSourcedNews-Group » GDP

The more government grows and borrows and the more interest we pay, the less of a standard of living you will enjoy.

admin — Sun, 20 May 2012 04:02:46 +0000

> On Sun, 13 May 2012 08:58:30 -0500, jim < "sjedgingN0Sp"@m @&*$?%mwt.net>
> wrote:
>
>> emoneyjoe wrote:
>>
>>>> That would create inflation.
>>>
>>> Probably not, the thing that causes the
>>> most inflation is things that drive up costs,
>>> like wage increases, and scarcity, so what
>>> is scarce today?
>>
>> Money is scarce due to private sector
>> no longer borrowing $4 trillion like they
>> did in 2007.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Or any other product, service or tangible
>>> offered for sale, if the money was gained honestly,
>>> why wouldn’t money in the hands of a China man
>>> be the same as for any other man.
>>>
>>
>>
>> First you claim the bond buyers are going to
>> put the money in the bank and not buy goods and services
>> that cause inflation. Then you claim that they will
>> use the trillions to buy goods and services
>> that do cause inflation
>>
>> The fact is the SS recipients are already
>> spending the money once. You want twice as
>> much $$ spent but insist there will be no inflation
>>from doing that.
>
> No, I don’t, no I don’t, I don’t, just the same
> pay out, without borrowing, it is congress that
> has already spent the SS trust fund and has to
> borrow if the treasury needs any of the virtual
> trust fund to pay pensions.
> The only way to do that is create emoney.
>
>
>
>> Inflation is what costs me money.
>> The interest on the federal debt costs me and
>> my grandchildren nothing.

["TGR: How long will it take for the U.S. to get to the bang point?

LH: We really don't know. A lot of economic analysis historically has
downplayed the role of debt. I've done an exhaustive search of the
literature, and never found a model that indicates when you reach the
bang point. A host of parameters can play into the situation, but one of
the triggering elements concerns the percentage of the revenue base of
the governmental entity that must go to interest expense. As the
interest expense rises, it absorbs a bigger and bigger portion of the
revenue."]

More interest on debt creates more taxes and more inflation and I was in
a few stores just yesterday and it’s NOT getting any cheaper out there
to live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

Government uses more of the GDP to pay the interest on the National debt
as they increase the size and cost of Government.

["The argument for using GDP as a standard-of-living proxy is not that
it is a good indicator of the absolute level of standard of living, but
that living standards tend to move with per-capita GDP, so that changes
in living standards are readily detected through changes in GDP."]

The higher the percentage of the GDP that goes to paying government debt
(interest on the debt) the less your quality of living will be.

Why does the equation for the GDP NOT have government spending minus the
government payment of interest on the debt as part of the equation.

[" GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending
+ (exports ? imports), or

GDP = C + I + G + ( X - M ) "]

You see government spending but where is the cost to the GDP of that
government spending…. It should be

GDP = C + I + (G – INTEREST ON NATIONAL DEBT) + (X – M)

If you are going to add what the government spends to help the economy
then you need to add what they are costing the economy also.

They have conveniently left out a huge part of the GDP which is interest
on the National debt and it’s slated to be as much as our MILITARY COSTS
IN A FEW YEARS.

["Federal debt as a share of the nation's income has varied.
Historically, the nation has run up deficits during wars and recessions,
but then debt has subsequently declined. For example, debt as a share of
the economy peaked just after World War II (112.7% of GDP in 1945), but
then fell. In recent years, however, sharp increases in deficits and the
resulting increases in debt have led to heightened concern about the
long-term sustainability of the federal government's fiscal policies
(62% of GDP in 2010).[9]…..

Debt relative to GDP rose due to recessions and policy decisions in the
early 21st century. *From* 2000 to 2008 *debt held by the public rose*
from 35% to 40%, and to 62% by the *end of fiscal year* 2010.[19] During
the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from
$5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[20]
due in part to the Bush tax cuts and increased military spending caused
by the wars in the Middle East.[21] Under President Barack Obama, the
debt increased from $10.7 trillion in 2008 to $15.5 trillion by February
2012,[22] caused mainly by decreased tax revenue and higher safety net
costs due to the late-2000s recession and stimulus spending.[12]“]

*Debt is up 22% since Obama took over.*

Even more since we have 2011 DATA and the National Debt is at 100% of
GDP. I notice that no one is updating the data that makes Obama look bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_debt_to_GDP_-_2000_to_2010.png

["The federal government's interest payments depend primarily on
interest rates and the amount of debt held by the public. Other factors,
such as the rate of inflation and the maturity structure of outstanding
securities, also affect interest costs (for example, long-term bonds
generally carry higher interest rates than do short-term bills).
Interest rates are determined by a combination of market forces and the
policies of the Federal Reserve. Debt held by the public is determined
mostly by cumulative budget deficits, which depend on policy choices
about spending and revenues and on economic conditions and other factors.

Although *the federal government has increased its net borrowing* by
more than $3 *trillion in the past two years*, net interest costs
dropped from $253 billion in 2008 to $197 billion in 2010 because of
remarkably low interest rates. The amounts of net interest shown in the
budget include interest paid on all Treasury securities ($413 billion in
2010), minus the portion of that interest that is received by trust
funds ($186 billion in 2010) and the net amount of other interest
received by the government ($30 billion in 2010). The last category
consists primarily of net receipts to the Treasury from the financing
accounts for federal loan programs (those accounts are not included in
the federal budget).

In CBO's most recent projections, which assume that current laws remain
the same, annual deficits decline from the $1.3 trillion recorded in
2010, but the cumulative deficit from 2011 through 2020 exceeds $6.2
trillion. Borrowing to finance that deficit--in combination with an
expected rise in interest rates--would lead to a fourfold increase in
net interest payments over the next 10 years, from $197 billion in 2010
to $778 billion in 2020. As a percentage of GDP, net interest outlays
would more than double during that period, rising from 1.4 percent to
3.4 percent."]

Looks like the cost of the interest as part of the GDP doubles and what
is bad is that the *PIE IN THE SKY* HOPE AND CHANGE is making things
worse and NOT better as they predicted so you can imagine all these
numbers being much worse as in more than doubling them……

All those good numbers are with Obama and the Federal reserve
MANIPULATING interest rates and the economy…. what happens when they
can no longer afford to manipulate this phony economy?

The more government grows and borrows and the more interest we pay, the
less of a standard of living you will enjoy.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America ‘s debt limit
is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government
cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing
financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s
reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America ‘s debt weakens us
domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, “the buck stops
here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today
onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt
problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
*Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006*

#USA set to devalue dollar

admin — Sun, 20 May 2012 03:21:49 +0000

On 5/19/2012 11:15 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 21:08:44 -0500, jim < "sjedgingN0Sp"@m @&*$?%mwt,net>
> wrote:
>
>> emoneyjoe wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> If the government stops selling debt the massive private sector
>>>> debt will cause a depression just like it did in the 1930′s.
>>>
>>> Can you break that down into example events,
>>> and please use ordinary English like “borrowing”
>>> instead od “selling debt”.
>>
>> It is the private sector that has borrowed too much.
>>
>> http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/5/7/428250-13363801587809994-Michael-Clark.png
>
> But how does that become a much worse
> problem if government stops borrowing?
>

[...
TGR: Does Congress have the will to make the necessary changes?

LH: I'd like to think we have the political will to try to tackle the
problems, but I'm fearful we do not. Here's the problem. Federal outlays
have been running at 25% of GDP for each of the last three years, which
is the highest since 1942–1944. Based on existing laws that govern
Social Security and Medicare, at that rate federal outlays will account
for 40% of GDP in 25 years.
...]

Riots in America?

admin — Fri, 18 May 2012 15:03:46 +0000

On 5/18/2012 10:30 AM, wolfagain wrote:
> On May 18, 9:13 am, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>> On May 18, 4:18 am, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>> gee, i wonder why. the wealthy have soaked up just about every red
>> cent earned in america over the last three decades, and are sitting on
>> record piles of cash. this has starved the real economy to stall
>> speed.
>> you cannot be educated, because you are hard wired to be a brown
>> nose. i am posting this empirical evidence for the sane to read.
>>
>> the wealthy create jobs:There is only one thing wrong with this
>> premise and theory. It is not true! There is absolutely no empirical
>> evidence to support such a claim. None!:you will find a clear positive
>> correlation between?high tax rates and prosperity
>>
>> “….Adam Smith—one of the founders of modern economics—recognized
>> clearly that a poor distribution of wealth could undermine the free
>> market system, noting that: “The disposition to admire, and almost to
>> worship, the rich and the powerful and…neglect persons of poor and
>> mean condition…is the great and most universal cause of the corruption
>> of our moral sentiments.”
>>
>> http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/02/234238/conservative-myth-…
>>
>> Bloomberg News interviewed Joel Slemrod, who was is an economist at
>> the University of Michigian and is a former senior economic adviser to
>> President Ronald Reagan, about the issue. Slemrod pointed out that
>> high tax countries tend to perform well economically and said that
>> returning to Clinton-era tax rates in 2013 would not harm the economy:
>> “High GDP countries are high tax countries,” said Joel Slemrod, an
>> economist at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business.
>> “That doesn’t mean high taxes cause the high GDP.” [...] Slemrod, who
>> served as senior staff economist for President Ronald Reagan’s Council
>> of Economic Advisers, said raising taxes today would be risky because
>> the economy remains fragile. But given the economy’s performance in
>> the 1990s, returning marginal rates to their Clinton-era levels in
>> 2013, as Obama proposes, wouldn’t be, he said. “It’s just hard to say
>> that’s the kiss of death for economic growth,” Slemrod said.
>>
>> 1/965951/-Job-creation-by-the-…
>>
>> Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 02:44 PM PDT
>> Job creation by the wealthy…mostly a myth
>>
>> Give the rich more money with tax breaks, and the result will be…
>> they will get richer!
>>
>> We hear it continually, it is the mantra of conservatives: “we must
>> give tax breaks to the wealthy so they can create more jobs…and higher
>> taxes will stifle economic growth…because the rich are the job
>> creators…” It is the basis of all the tax breaks given the top income
>> groups in recent years, including the contentious extension of the
>> Bush tax cuts to top brackets, last year. It is the common subject of
>> conservatives on the talk shows. Just last weekend, Paul Ryan, now the
>> architect of the new Republican budget, reaffirmed his proposal to cut
>> the top tax rate to 25% claiming in his plan: …advancing pro-growth
>> tax reforms, this budget is a jobs budget. It sends signals to
>> investors, entrepreneurs, and job creators that a brighter future is
>> still possible.
>> There is only one thing wrong with this premise and theory. It is not
>> true! There is absolutely no empirical evidence to support such a
>> claim. None! Yet, those who purport it continue to glibly make the
>> claim as though it were fact. And for good reason, it gives them cover
>> for avoiding the charge that they are merely attempting to make the
>> rich richer; and it also permits them to focus on deficit reduction
>> through smaller government rather than having to address the revenue
>> side of the equation as well.
>> Indeed, there is actually evidence that there is not only no
>> correlation between granting the wealthy tax relief to “grow the
>> economy”, there is even some evidence that the contrary is frequently
>> true.
>> Since 1945, the increases in the Federal deficit went up 4.2% under
>> Democratic administrations; and 36.4% under Republican presidents
>> (source CBO). That is not as relevant as the fact that the deficit
>> increase was coincidental with GOP presidents who reduced taxes – most
>> notably Reagan (deficit up11.2% & 5.9% in his two terms); George H. W.
>> Bush (6.5%); and especially George W. Bush (up 9% and10.7%). While it
>> may be argued, this is not necessarily related to “job creation”, it
>> is related to increases in GDP (debt/GDP ratio) or relative robustness
>> of the economy. These presidents cut taxes, increased debt, but the
>> economy did not grow accordingly. In short, as with historical
>> “trickle down” strategies…it failed.
>> Joel Slemrod, Professor of Stephan Ross School of Business at the
>> University of Michigan, and Harvard PhD, who studies and writes about
>> this phenomena, has noted: judging by the political scene in
>> Washington, one would think that low taxes were the main source of
>> economic growth in the United States and around the world…even most
>> Democrats dare not demand that President Bush’s tax cuts be rescinded…
>> but there is no compelling evidence that high taxes impede economic
>> growth.
>> Based on his above findings, Slemrod wrote: “there is no supportive
>> evidence for the claim that low taxes guarantee prosperity. In fact,
>> if you just plot out?the points (internationally), you will find a
>> clear, positive correlation between?high tax rates and prosperity, and
>> that is because developed countries?are the ones with the high tax
>> ratios.” And similarly regarding capital gains tax reductions, “That
>> argument is not implausible, but I know of no evidence?that
>> establishes a connection between prosperity and at what rate we tax
>> capital gains.”
>> The fallacy is most apparent at the highest end of tax forgiveness.?In
>> recent years, the top 400 taxpayers had an average income of $344.8
>> million, up from their average $263.3 million income in 2006,
>> according to figures in a report that the IRS issued. Their effective
>> income tax rate fell to 16.62 percent. That rate is lower than the
>> typical effective income tax rate paid by Americans with incomes in
>> the low six figures. Giving the rich a tax break is obviously not
>> needed – they figure out their own tax benefits. Yet, there is
>> absolutely no real evidence that this generous tax advantage among the
>> upper wealthy is incenting them to create new jobs. It simply is not
>> happening. Folks this rich, do not need to trivialize themselves
>> creating new jobs; and Ryan’s tax proposal is simply ridiculous for
>> this group; they can get along very well with about $300 million after
>> taxes. The facts are further described in a new report on angel and VC
>> investing in 2010.
>> Virtually everyone concedes is will be small businesses, and often
>> “start ups” that will propel an improved economy, But despite the low
>> tax rates (now extended), this report confirms that wealthy angel
>> investors are not increasing investing in new job creation. In fact,
>> they are investing less. Total investments in Q1,2 2010 were $8.5
>> billion, a decrease of 6.5% over Q1,2 2009, according to the Center
>> for Venture Research at the University of New Hampshire. Angel
>> investors have decreased their appetite for seed and start-up stage
>> investing, with 26% of Q1,2 2010 angel investments in the seed and
>> start-up stage, marking a steady decrease in the seed and start-up
>> stage that began in 2008 (45%) and 2009 (35%), and it is the smallest
>> percentage in seed and start-up investing for several years. This
>> significant percentage of latent investors indicates that while many
>> high net worth individuals may be qualified investors, they have not
>> converted this interest into direct participation – and it is not
>> taxes that are driving their decisions.
>> In short, the premise and the promise that giving substantial tax
>> breaks to the very wealthy will stimulate the economy, and “create new
>> jobs”, simply has no basis in fact or reality. What it has done,
>> factually, is to increase the deficits whenever it has been tried…it
>> further confirms the failure of trickle down economics…and it has made
>> the already wealthy, wealthier. It also makes for great sound bites
>> for conservative proponents of the plan. But what is has not done is
>> to create new jobs as proponents have portrayed – because that is a
>> myth.
>> ———————————————————————————————————
>> the reagan/bush tax cuts:the wealthy create jobs myth:I do not know
>> how much I’ve saved over 10 years but I’m sure it is several million
>> dollars:probably in excess of $10 million:what have you done with all
>> that cash?:I’ve kept it he said:I have not done anything with that
>> money.
>> the wealthy create jobs myth:There is only one thing wrong with this
>> premise and theory. It is not true! There is absolutely no empirical
>> evidence to support such a claim. None!:you will find a clear positive
>> correlation between?high tax rates and prosperity
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/06/patriotic-millionaires-bush-…
>>
>> Arthur Delaney art…@huffingtonpost.com Become a fan of this reporter
>>
>> ‘Patriotic Millionaires’ Describe What They’ve Done With Their Bush
>> Tax Cuts: ‘I Built A Dance Floor In My House’
>> ?First Posted: 06/ 6/11 02:29 PM ET Updated: 06/ 6/11 04:26 PM ET
>>
>> WASHINGTON — Paul Egerman isn’t certain how many millions he’s saved
>> from the tax cuts enacted during the George W. Bush administration in
>> the early 2000s and extended by President Barack Obama in December of
>> last year.
>> “I do not know how much I’ve saved over 10 years but I’m sure it is
>> several million dollars — probably in excess of $10 million,” said
>> Egerman, founder of a medical transcription company called eScription.
>> And what, HuffPost asked, have you done with all that cash?
>> “I’ve kept it,” he said. “I have not done anything with …
>>
>> read more »
>
> DUMB A&*$?%S!!! when was the last time a Poor person hired an unemployed
> loser like you? the 3 biggest job creators of the last 30 years were
> BILLIONAIRES Sam Walton, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates…yet another
> HuffPost MORON chirps in…STFU!!!

Socialists don’t understand how the economy works…. They are
ignorant of how Capitalism creates wealth.

So ignorant that they think only an all powerful totalitarian government
that distributes money/food equally will ever keep them from
starving…. and let them live as well as the elites.

But wait, Americans aren’t starving and Mao was running a totalitarian
Government that actually starved 40 MILLION people (albeit they were
peasants that didn’t take to collectivization) but they were people
and they were working to feed themselves and their family. Until Mao
decided that they needed things to be better and more equal and
Socialist so they could live as well as all the other Socialists in
China. The fact is that rather than living like the “elite Chinese” or
having more to eat, the peasants starved.

Got to love the Socialists brain farts.

GDP = C + I + G + ( X – M )

admin — Tue, 15 May 2012 18:48:55 +0000

Why does the equation for the GDP NOT have government spending minus the
government payment of interest on the debt as part of the equation.

[" GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending
+ (exports - imports), or

GDP = C + I + G + ( X - M ) "]

You see government spending but where is the “cost to the GDP” of that
government spending…. It should be

GDP = C + I + (G – INTEREST ON NATIONAL DEBT) + (X – M)

If you are going to add what the government spends to help the economy
then you need to add what they are costing the economy also.

They have conveniently left out a huge part of the GDP which is
interest on the National debt and it’s slated to be as much as our
MILITARY COSTS IN A FEW YEARS.

NEW IMPROVED OBAMA SOCIALIST SUPER-SIZED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT….

admin — Mon, 14 May 2012 00:28:09 +0000

On 5/13/2012 1:25 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 12:52:09 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2012 11:24 AM, emoneyjoe wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 08:58:30 -0500, jim < "sjedgingN0Sp"@m @&*$?%mwt.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> emoneyjoe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> That would create inflation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably not, the thing that causes the
>>>>> most inflation is things that drive up costs,
>>>>> like wage increases, and scarcity, so what
>>>>> is scarce today?
>>>>
>>>> Money is scarce due to private sector
>>>> no longer borrowing $4 trillion like they
>>>> did in 2007.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or any other product, service or tangible
>>>>> offered for sale, if the money was gained honestly,
>>>>> why wouldn’t money in the hands of a China man
>>>>> be the same as for any other man.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First you claim the bond buyers are going to
>>>> put the money in the bank and not buy goods and services
>>>> that cause inflation. Then you claim that they will
>>>> use the trillions to buy goods and services
>>>> that do cause inflation
>>>>
>>>> The fact is the SS recipients are already
>>>> spending the money once. You want twice as
>>>> much $$ spent but insist there will be no inflation
>>> >from doing that.
>>>
>>> No, I don’t, no I don’t, I don’t, just the same
>>> pay out, without borrowing, it is congress that
>>> has already spent the SS trust fund and has to
>>> borrow if the treasury needs any of the virtual
>>> trust fund to pay pensions.
>>> The only way to do that is create emoney.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Inflation is what costs me money.
>>>> The interest on the federal debt costs me and
>>>> my grandchildren nothing.
>>>
>>> You don’t spend enough on the things
>>> that matter to be worrying about inflation,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> More interest on debt creates more taxes and more inflation and I was in
>> a few stores just yesterday and it’s NOT getting any cheaper out there
>> to live.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png
>>
>>
>> Government uses more of the GDP to pay the interest on the National debt
>> as they increase the size and cost of Government.
>>
>>
>> ["The argument for using GDP as a standard-of-living proxy is not that
>> it is a good indicator of the absolute level of standard of living, but
>> that living standards tend to move with per-capita GDP, so that changes
>> in living standards are readily detected through changes in GDP."]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The higher the percentage of the GDP that goes to paying government debt
>> (interest on the debt) the less your quality of living will be.
>>
>> Why does the equation for the GDP NOT have government spending minus the
>> government payment of interest on the debt as part of the equation.
>>
>> [" GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending
>> + (exports - imports), or
>>
>> GDP = C + I + G + ( X - M ) "]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You see government spending but where is the cost to the GDP of that
>> government spending…. It should be
>>
>> GDP = C + I + (G – INTEREST ON NATIONAL DEBT) + (X – M)
>>
>> If you are going to add what the government spends to help the economy
>> then you need to add what they are costing the economy also.
>>
>> They have conveniently left out a huge part of the GDP which is interest
>> on the National debt and it’s slated to be as much as our MILITARY COSTS
>> IN A FEW YEARS.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ["Federal debt as a share of the nation's income has varied.
>> Historically, the nation has run up deficits during wars and recessions,
>> but then debt has subsequently declined. For example, debt as a share of
>> the economy peaked just after World War II (112.7% of GDP in 1945), but
>> then fell. In recent years, however, sharp increases in deficits and the
>> resulting increases in debt have led to heightened concern about the
>> long-term sustainability of the federal government's fiscal policies
>> (62% of GDP in 2010).[9]…..
>>
>> Debt relative to GDP rose due to recessions and policy decisions in the
>> early 21st century. *From* 2000 to 2008 *debt held by the public rose*
>>from 35% to 40%, and to 62% by the *end of fiscal year* 2010.[19] During
>> the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from
>> $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[20]
>> due in part to the Bush tax cuts and increased military spending caused
>> by the wars in the Middle East.[21] Under President Barack Obama, the
>> debt increased from $10.7 trillion in 2008 to $15.5 trillion by February
>> 2012,[22] caused mainly by decreased tax revenue and higher safety net
>> costs due to the late-2000s recession and stimulus spending.[12]“]
>>
>>
>> *Debt is up 22% since Obama took over.*
>>
>> Even more since we have 2011 DATA and the National Debt is at 100% of
>> GDP. I notice that no one is updating the data that makes Obama look bad.
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_debt_to_GDP_-_2000_to_2010.png
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ["The federal government's interest payments depend primarily on
>> interest rates and the amount of debt held by the public. Other factors,
>> such as the rate of inflation and the maturity structure of outstanding
>> securities, also affect interest costs (for example, long-term bonds
>> generally carry higher interest rates than do short-term bills).
>> Interest rates are determined by a combination of market forces and the
>> policies of the Federal Reserve. Debt held by the public is determined
>> mostly by cumulative budget deficits, which depend on policy choices
>> about spending and revenues and on economic conditions and other factors.
>>
>> Although *the federal government has increased its net borrowing* by
>> more than $3 *trillion in the past two years*, net interest costs
>> dropped from $253 billion in 2008 to $197 billion in 2010 because of
>> remarkably low interest rates. The amounts of net interest shown in the
>> budget include interest paid on all Treasury securities ($413 billion in
>> 2010), minus the portion of that interest that is received by trust
>> funds ($186 billion in 2010) and the net amount of other interest
>> received by the government ($30 billion in 2010). The last category
>> consists primarily of net receipts to the Treasury from the financing
>> accounts for federal loan programs (those accounts are not included in
>> the federal budget).
>>
>> In CBO's most recent projections, which assume that current laws remain
>> the same, annual deficits decline from the $1.3 trillion recorded in
>> 2010, but the cumulative deficit from 2011 through 2020 exceeds $6.2
>> trillion. Borrowing to finance that deficit--in combination with an
>> expected rise in interest rates--would lead to a fourfold increase in
>> net interest payments over the next 10 years, from $197 billion in 2010
>> to $778 billion in 2020. As a percentage of GDP, net interest outlays
>> would more than double during that period, rising from 1.4 percent to
>> 3.4 percent."]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Looks like the cost of the interest as part of the GDP doubles and what
>> is bad is that the *PIE IN THE SKY* HOPE AND CHANGE is making things
>> worse and NOT better as they predicted so you can imagine all these
>> numbers being much worse as in more than doubling them……
>>
>> All those good numbers are with Obama and the Federal reserve
>> MANIPULATING interest rates and the economy…. what happens when they
>> can no longer afford to manipulate this phony economy?
>>
>>
>>
>> The more government grows and borrows and the more interest we pay, the
>> less of a standard of living you will enjoy.
>>
>> “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America ‘s debt limit
>> is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government
>> cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing
>> financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s
>> reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America ‘s debt weakens us
>> domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, “the buck stops
>> here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today
>> onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt
>> problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
>> *Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006*
>
> Yeah, I remember when my Aunt died in 2001
> she had been getting about 8 percent on bonds
> and CDs, and as soon as I had them put in my
> name, I was lucky to get 1.5 percent.
>
> April 2001, who was president?

And this time next year you and the others will be getting 8% and the
government will be paying that and more to sell their Fed Bonds to get
all that money they need to pay for their NEW IMPROVED OBAMA SOCIALIST
SUPER-SIZED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT …. then the sky is the limit from that
point.

The more government grows and borrows and the more interest we pay, the less of a standard of living you will enjoy.

admin — Sun, 13 May 2012 16:52:09 +0000

On 5/13/2012 11:24 AM, emoneyjoe wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 08:58:30 -0500, jim < "sjedgingN0Sp"@m @&*$?%mwt.net>
> wrote:
>
>> emoneyjoe wrote:
>>
>>>> That would create inflation.
>>>
>>> Probably not, the thing that causes the
>>> most inflation is things that drive up costs,
>>> like wage increases, and scarcity, so what
>>> is scarce today?
>>
>> Money is scarce due to private sector
>> no longer borrowing $4 trillion like they
>> did in 2007.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Or any other product, service or tangible
>>> offered for sale, if the money was gained honestly,
>>> why wouldn’t money in the hands of a China man
>>> be the same as for any other man.
>>>
>>
>>
>> First you claim the bond buyers are going to
>> put the money in the bank and not buy goods and services
>> that cause inflation. Then you claim that they will
>> use the trillions to buy goods and services
>> that do cause inflation
>>
>> The fact is the SS recipients are already
>> spending the money once. You want twice as
>> much $$ spent but insist there will be no inflation
>>from doing that.
>
> No, I don’t, no I don’t, I don’t, just the same
> pay out, without borrowing, it is congress that
> has already spent the SS trust fund and has to
> borrow if the treasury needs any of the virtual
> trust fund to pay pensions.
> The only way to do that is create emoney.
>
>
>
>> Inflation is what costs me money.
>> The interest on the federal debt costs me and
>> my grandchildren nothing.
>
> You don’t spend enough on the things
> that matter to be worrying about inflation,

More interest on debt creates more taxes and more inflation and I was in
a few stores just yesterday and it’s NOT getting any cheaper out there
to live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

Government uses more of the GDP to pay the interest on the National debt
as they increase the size and cost of Government.

The higher the percentage of the GDP that goes to paying government debt
(interest on the debt) the less your quality of living will be.

Why does the equation for the GDP NOT have government spending minus the
government payment of interest on the debt as part of the equation.

[" GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending
+ (exports ? imports), or

GDP = C + I + G + ( X - M ) "]

You see government spending but where is the cost to the GDP of that
government spending…. It should be

GDP = C + I + (G – INTEREST ON NATIONAL DEBT) + (X – M)

If you are going to add what the government spends to help the economy
then you need to add what they are costing the economy also.

They have conveniently left out a huge part of the GDP which is interest
on the National debt and it’s slated to be as much as our MILITARY COSTS
IN A FEW YEARS.

*Debt is up 22% since Obama took over.*

Even more since we have 2011 DATA and the National Debt is at 100% of
GDP. I notice that no one is updating the data that makes Obama look bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_debt_to_GDP_-_2000_to_2010.png

In CBO's most recent projections, which assume that current laws remain
the same, annual deficits decline from the $1.3 trillion recorded in
2010, but the cumulative deficit from 2011 through 2020 exceeds $6.2
trillion. Borrowing to finance that deficit--in combination with an
expected rise in interest rates--would lead to a fourfold increase in
net interest payments over the next 10 years, from $197 billion in 2010
to $778 billion in 2020. As a percentage of GDP, net interest outlays
would more than double during that period, rising from 1.4 percent to
3.4 percent."]

All those good numbers are with Obama and the Federal reserve
MANIPULATING interest rates and the economy…. what happens when they
can no longer afford to manipulate this phony economy?

The more government grows and borrows and the more interest we pay, the
less of a standard of living you will enjoy.

Federal tax receipts are lowest they have been since 1950. – 1 attachment

admin — Sun, 13 May 2012 01:44:20 +0000

On 5/12/2012 9:59 AM, clairbear wrote:
> “Sid9″ wrote in news:jolks0$kr6$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me:
>
>>
>> “clairbear” wrote in message
>> news:XnsA050EB16D5668clairbear @&*$?%216.196.97.142…
>>> “Sid9″ wrote in
>>> news:jokg43$kcv$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> “Lamont Cranston” wrote in message
>>>> news:jokfqu$p5s$8 @&*$?%news.datemas.de…
>>>>> On 5/10/2012 1:57 PM, clairbear wrote:
>>>>>> “First.Post” wrote in
>>>>>> news:XnsA04F9ED1B8CA6OccupierDumber @&*$?%88.198.244.100:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> clairbear wrote in
>>>>>>> news:XnsA04FA304BE7F7clairbear @&*$?%216.196.97.142:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jim< "sjedgingN0Sp"@m @&*$?%mwt,net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:Z-qdnf6chbu4lzHSnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d @&*$?%bright.net:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> clairbear wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Debt was a bad Idea Under Bush and the the 110th dem
>>>>>>>>>> controlled congress when it shot up dramatically , Itwas bad
>>>>>>>>>> before that, It’s gotten far, far worse
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless when the time comes you will embrace the
>>>>>>>>> federal debt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You do even begin to know who or what I am. But we know what
>>>>>>>> your are Just by the FACT that you edit out reference to you
>>>>>>>> hero and his saying ho wbad the debt was before HE RAN UP $5
>>>>>>>> TRILLION worth of debt in less than 4 years NOW be a good
>>>>>>>> little liberal HYPOCRITE AND ERASE THAT BEFORE YOU REPLY and
>>>>>>>> that will cofirm all doubt of what a HYPOCRITE you are
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More of a complete idiot than a hypocrite considering the goof
>>>>>>> believes that the federal debt is irrellevant to anything and
>>>>>>> means nothing. Yeah yeah, sure sure, he preaches that the
>>>>>>> government debt doesn’t matter as long as his liberal messiah is
>>>>>>> in office but watch his opinion change after the election and a
>>>>>>> Republican sits in the whitehouse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah it like that oft misattributed remarks “a billion here, a
>>>>>> billion there ans soon your talking real money” No debt is good
>>>>>> debt unless it something you can reasonably pay back whether it be
>>>>>> personal , business , state of national debt. Problem is with so
>>>>>> many sucking at the federal teat
>>>>>> deficit spending has become a peramnent thing. Imagine if you
>>>>>> lived you personal always borrowing more than you can pay back
>>>>>> where would you be, Thats where we are headed as a nation if thing
>>>>>> don’t change Speaking of change remember thos promises of and
>>>>>> slogans of 4 years ago, Change Hope and Transparency. we got none
>>>>>> in fact we got almost the opposite, now the sloagn is Forward. If
>>>>>> past is prolog we a need to be very
>>>>>> concerned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please, please take an English class.
>>>>
>>>> Clair’s logic and economics are bad, too.
>>> Wrong
>>>> Home schooled?
>>> Wrong
>>>> Went to school in a state of the former confederacy?
>>> Wrong
>>>> ALL debt is NOT bad.
>>> To quote Polonius to his son Laertes
>>> Neither a borrower nor a lender be,
>>> For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
>>> And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
>>>
>>> National debt at the levels of the last foive years is very bad
>>> Ever since the begining of the 110th congress the debt has been
>>> rising at a
>>> runaway rate
>>> Only a horses a&*$?%s would defend what the 110th and 111th congresses
>>> and Obama have done to the debt And before you go off on bush rant he
>>> was in part resposible for letting the dems of the 110th run up the
>>> tab
>>>
>>
>> Debt and deficits are crises only when a Democrat is in the White
>> House.
>>
>> These were just fine when St Reagan of the spend and borrow school was
>> president
>> These were just fine when bush,jr had two unfunded wars (off budget)
>>
>> What a bunch of hypocrites!
>>
>>
> Massive debt is bad no matter who is the Whitehouse but lets not forget
> who controls writing budgets, the congess and who was in control of
> congress During the recent upward movement of the debt the dems held
> both or one house of congess when the republicsn cotrolled both houses
> under clinton and bush the Debt to GDP ration trended down. Since the
> start of 110Th, through the 112th(no budget congress) the dems
> controlled both houses now the controol the sente. The same senate that
> refused to bring the budget to the floor for a vote.
>

The debt in 1941 was a combination of things including savings
bonds….. It was NOT just a bunch of crazy over spending by
GOVERNMENT POLITICIANS and people were readily using their own money to
help the Nation. Today it’s the government stealing from people and
telling them it isn’t their money. The difference is about as wide a
chasm as the Grand canyon.

Disasters

admin — Wed, 09 May 2012 02:01:38 +0000

On 5/8/2012 9:44 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “Sid9″ wrote in message
> news:joch94$8gt$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me…
>>
>> “clairbear” wrote in message
>> news:XnsA04DD2EE071B1clairbear @&*$?%216.196.97.142…
>>> “Sid9″ wrote in news:joccsn$rqb$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> “David Hartung” wrote in message
>>>> news:j6adndnbju6zLzTSnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d @&*$?%giganews.com…
>>>>> On 05/08/2012 05:30 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Werner” wrote in message
>>>>>> news:33304927.265.1336501387394.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
>>> forums @&*$?%vbbh3.
>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>> FDR relied on WW2 to I prove production and lower unemployment.
>>>>>>> Look for something similar when civil unrest builds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First FDR drafted all the unemployed men into the military
>>>>>> There he provided them with socialistic benefits.
>>>>>> Free food
>>>>>> Free clothing
>>>>>> Free shelter
>>>>>> Free medical care
>>>>>> Free training.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were no longer unemployed!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Next FDR had factories built which employed women and 4Fs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They produced goods, weapons, explosives, tanks, ship, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This stuff didn’t have to be sold.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They put on ships and sent it to Europe and the Far East.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some got sunk by German submarines, some got blown up in battle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How did we pay for it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We raised taxes and borrowed every nickel of the money needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> America prospered!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> America’s standard of living actually improved during WWII.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how do we apply the lesson learned during WWII?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Do all the things that FDR did.
>>>>>> 2. Hire the Germans and the Japanese to destroy what we produced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I intend this to be a humorous attack on austerity)
>>>>>> (Austerity does the opposite of what FDR did. Austerity CREATES
>>>>>> unemployment)
>>>>>
>>>>> There is one major difference between then and now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gross Federal debt in 1940 was around 52% of GDP. Today it is around
>>>>> 105% of GDP.
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>> The increased economic activity will pay back the borrowed money.
>>>> The debt, as it did after WWII, will shrink by comparison.
>>>> Meanwhile, Americans lives will be improved instead of being made
>>>> miserable by austerity.
>>> WE manufactured the war goods and those factories then change to
>>> consumer good to satisfy pent up demands due to years of privation
>>> during the war. We do not, thanks to the acceleration of out sourcing
>>> that really took off under Clinton and continued under Bush, have the
>>> manufacturing infrastructure that we had at the end of WWII That’s all
>>> been shipped to Asia and other parts of the less affluent parts of the
>>> world. There are at least 5 factories sitting empty in my hometown Emty
>>> of product Empty of tool Empty of jobs We do not have the entrepenuers
>>> do to the tax the rich mentality and years of complacencyby government,
>>> the American business community, and our government teat dependent
>>> people
>>>> The very austerity that could bring on social unrest and violence in
>>>> the streets.
>>>> Evidence of latent street unrest is already showing up in austerity
>>>> driven nations
>>> Auserrity or privations of war the “greatest Generation” dealt with led
>>> to that pent up deamd for all sorts of consumer goods They knew how to
>>> make sacrifices for a better future. WE are all just a bunch of spoiled
>>> kids by comparison
>>>>
>>>> # blowing up the stuff and sinking the ships is not essential to the
>>>> plan. It’s better that we make consumer goods and give it away to our
>>>> people
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> The only sacrifice was with their lives.
>> The goods that improved their lives were given to them by a socialist
>> system
>>
>> Free food
>> Free clothing
>> Free shelter
>> Free medical care
>> Free training.
>>
>> The only thing lacking in 2012 is the motivation.
>>
>> We have the food, the clothing, the shelter, we can provide the
>> medical care, we can provide training.
>>
>> We do not have the WILL to do these things.
>>
>> We have greedy Americans who think that they lose something when we
>> give stuff away.
>> They identify themselves as Tea Party or Republican
>>
>>
>
> Oooops! I even left something important out.
> The “socialist” system even gave them money each month on payday.

You also left out that when you “give” someone what they want, they no
longer need to buy it.

What you “are” doing is killing the economy. No wonder we are in a
recession and still crashing.

Capitalism is freedom of trade, so when the government imposes its self
into a trade, we have lost the Capitalism.

The question is….. what is filling the void where Capitalism had
originally been.

Obama has accomplished nothing, the economy is still collapsing.

admin — Sun, 06 May 2012 02:23:45 +0000

On 5/5/2012 8:42 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:
> On 5/4/2012 8:32 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:
>> Sid9″ wrote in message
>> news:jo1qk9$ote$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me…> EXCERPT: Compare these observations
>> with the experience of the U.S., where
>>> prompt remediation of the crisis in the banking sector — temporary
>>> recapitalization using public funds — catalyzed a quick bounce-back
>>> from
>>> catastrophic financial failure.
>>
>> Except: We have 1.5 million more unemployed than in January, 2009,
>
> Simply a lie.
>> the worst
>> year in housing on record,
>
> Simply a lie.
>
>> the worst worforce participation on record,
>
> Simply a lie.
>
>> 3 1/2
>> years of over 8% unemployment – longest since WW II,
>
> Thanks, Bush administration.
>
>> $5 trilloion in new
>> deficit spending,
>
> Simply a lie.
>
>> no federal budget since spring of 2009.
>
> Who gives a s&*$?%t?
>
>
> OTOH, we’ve had a 900,000 job a month turnaround and an 11% GDP growth
> turnaround.
>
Where are those jobs…? Where’s the 11% that doesn’t exist….

Obama is a failure, and it’s time to end the pain and get a real
President that likes all the people NOT just his Socialist/Communist
comrades.

Obama has accomplished nothing, the economy is still collapsing.

This graph tells you that 58.5% of working age Americans have had jobs for the last 2 years

admin — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 02:16:58 +0000

> On Apr 28, 7:42 pm, Lamont Cranston wrote:
>> On 4/28/2012 3:41 AM, Lifsabsurd wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 27, 9:33 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>> http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
>>
>>>> This graph tells you that 58.5% of working age Americans have had jobs
>>>> for the last 2 years and that’s fewer people than the 62.9% that were
>>>> working in 2008 when Obama took over….
>>
>>>> That clearly shows that Obama has NOT created any NET GAIN in jobs in
>>>> 3.5 years.
>>
>>>> This is the same sort of thing that Liberals won’t believe… that Obama
>>>> has run up the National debt by nearly $2 trillion dollars per year, but
>>>> it has grown to $16 trillion from only $9 trillion increasing the
>>>> National debt by about $7 trillion since Obama took over almost 3.5
>>>> years ago. We are at $1.4 trillion dollars of National Debt so far this
>>>> year with 5 months to go in the fiscal budget.
>>
>>>> This is why you have to ignore the Liberal whines and look at the real
>>>> numbers. They’re too busy fudging and faking other numbers… but
>>>> these that are the full amount have no Liberals successfully
>>>> manipulating them.
>>
>>>> ["If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and *his* budget projections prove
>>>> accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final
>>>> year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87
>>>> percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms."]
>>
>>>> But Obama’s budgets are fantasy so expect it to be much higher.
>>
>>>> ["The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects
>>>> the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The
>>>> budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in
>>>> 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022."]
>>
>>>> –
>>>> *He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-
>>
>>> All correct.
>>
>> All wrong.

http://usdebtclock.org/

Look at total government expenditures as a percentage of GDP…

/Federal/State/Local/ spending is 45% of GDP.

If government takes all the GDP and spends it, how will the private
sector be able to grow?

Now with government taking and spending 45% of the GDP, it means the
private sector businesses can’t invest and grow enough to keep
themselves in business.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

admin — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:26:42 +0000

On 4/23/2012 8:37 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 6:09 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 4/20/2012 8:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>>> On 4/20/2012 7:20 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>
>>>> “Josh” wrote in message
>>>> news:jmsme4$i4s$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>>>> On 4/20/2012 5:39 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:05 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:32 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative to a
>>>>>>>>>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and
>>>>>>>>>>> all of
>>>>>>>>>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using 2008
>>>>>>>>>>> as the
>>>>>>>>>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s last
>>>>>>>>>>> budget.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion
>>>>>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>>>>>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that
>>>>>>>>>> cutting
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
>>>>>>>>> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/07/25/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/debt%20changes%20under%20bush%20obama.jpg?uuid=qZCizrbZEeCYzBMQCYwsyQ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That link claims the spending increases under Obama are much smaller
>>>>>>> than they were under Bush.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for Noticing, even you catch the WILD Liberal lies….. Now
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> question is why did Obama propose 1.5 trillion in NEW TAXES to cover
>>>>>> his
>>>>>> 1.5 trillion in NEW SPENDING?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Federal/National debt is up from $9 trillion at the Obama
>>>>>> coronation
>>>>>> to $16 trillion in 3.5 years? If that isn’t debt what is it? That is
>>>>>> roughly $7 trillion of NEW OBAMA DEBT. That amounts to an average
>>>>>> of $2
>>>>>> trillion per year in the last 3.5 years. Bush was in office 8 years,
>>>>>> had he run the debt up 2 trillion a year it would have been 16
>>>>>> trillion
>>>>>> and Obama’s would NOW be at $23 trillion in debt.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can only conclude you are too stupid to understand why 2009 is the
>>>>> last Bush budget year, since you keep ignoring that fact.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It doesn’t matter. The debt under Obama is greater than under Bush, and
>>>> by a huge percentage. Let’s give the 2009 budget to Bush. Let’s give
>>>> him
>>>> the 2010 budget while we are passing stuff around. Obama STILL has
>>>> ballooned the national debt.
>>>>
>>>> Obama is making a claim, and by extension you are making it too,
>>>> that he
>>>> was divorced and the judge told him to pay his wife’s credit card bill,
>>>> and told her to stop using it. He is bitching today that he inherited a
>>>> balance of $10,000 but now it is $25,000, and unmanageable. THEN he
>>>> attempts to make the claim that it’s ALL her fault.
>>>
>>> I have made only one claim: that the claim that the deficit went up
>>> 100% under Obama is false.
>>
>>
>> I believe I have proven that Obama is increasing the deficit by about $2
>> trillion a year on average
>
> Simply a lie. The deficit doesn’t even approach $2 trillion, so he
> can’t possibly be increasing it by $2 trillion a year. Keep those lies
> coming, Beamer.

Then you tell us all how much the National debt has risen since Obama’s
inauguration day…. once you get that put on paper, then divide it by
3.5 years Obama has been president, then post that number here and tell
us how much the deficit is on average for the Obama Presidency.

I’m Not even talking about QE2 and QE3 yet but we can go there next and
add that cost to the numbers you post.

If you know you’re supporting totalitarians then you’re scum and if you don’t know it you’re an idiot.

admin — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:22:39 +0000

On 4/23/2012 12:48 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 4/23/2012 12:11 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>> “Nickname unavailable” wrote in message
>> news:4d789092-c5fa-4986-ab43-2919127223f2 @&*$?%m13g2000yqi.googlegroups.com…
>> On Apr 21, 10:41 am, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>> “Nickname unavailable” wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:27b36a16-338b-499e-99f2-95ea035ba907 @&*$?%p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com…
>>> On Apr 20, 8:24 pm, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> “Nickname unavailable” wrote in message
>>>
>>>> news:0b8617a9-d46b-4dd5-95f3-e08a007d66a2 @&*$?%i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com…
>>>
>>>> On Apr 20, 6:20 pm, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>>
>>>>> “Josh” wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> news:jmsme4$i4s$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>>
>>>>>> On 4/20/2012 5:39 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:05 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:32 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative
>>> to > > >>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and
>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using
>>> 2008 as
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s
>>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>> budget.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion
>>>>>>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>>>>>>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that
>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
>>>>>>>>>> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/…
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> That link claims the spending increases under Obama are much >
>>>>>>> smaller
>>>>>>>> than they were under Bush.
>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for Noticing, even you catch the WILD Liberal lies….. Now
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> question is why did Obama propose 1.5 trillion in NEW TAXES to
>>>>>>> cover
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>> 1.5 trillion in NEW SPENDING?
>>>
>>>>>>> The Federal/National debt is up from $9 trillion at the Obama
>>>>>>> coronation
>>>>>>> to $16 trillion in 3.5 years? If that isn’t debt what is it?
>>> That > > >> is
>>>>>>> roughly $7 trillion of NEW OBAMA DEBT. That amounts to an
>>> average > > >> of
>>>>>>> $2
>>>>>>> trillion per year in the last 3.5 years. Bush was in office 8 >
>>>>>> years,
>>>>>>> had he run the debt up 2 trillion a year it would have been 16
>>>>>>> trillion
>>>>>>> and Obama’s would NOW be at $23 trillion in debt.
>>>
>>>>>> I can only conclude you are too stupid to understand why 2009 is
>>> the
>>>>>> last
>>>>>> Bush budget year, since you keep ignoring that fact.
>>>
>>>>> It doesn’t matter. The debt under Obama is greater than under
>>> Bush, > > and
>>>>> by
>>>>> a
>>>>> huge percentage. Let’s give the 2009 budget to Bush. Let’s give
>>> him > > the
>>>>> 2010
>>>>> budget while we are passing stuff around. Obama STILL has
>>> ballooned > > the
>>>>> national debt.
>>>
>>>>> Obama is making a claim, and by extension you are making it too,
>>> that > > he
>>>>> was
>>>>> divorced and the judge told him to pay his wife’s credit card
>>> bill, > > and
>>>>> told
>>>>> her to stop using it. He is bitching today that he inherited a
>>> balance
>>>>> of
>>>>> $10,000 but now it is $25,000, and unmanageable. THEN he attempts to
>>>>> make
>>>>> the claim that it’s ALL her fault.
>>>
>>>> the debt from drunken sailor spending, and out right crank policies,
>>>> does not disappear the very next day after a election. if you put a
>>>> idiot in power, and most conservatives are. do not be to surprised if
>>>> you have to live with the results for decades to come.
>>>
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>>> It might not disappear, but the debt also does not GROW.
>>>
>>> sure it does. ever hear of interest. debt must be serviced. plus
>>> handing obama a blown out economy, two bungled wars, a unfunded
>>> medicare mandate, and two unfunded tax cuts for wealthy parasites, and
>>> its a witches brew.
>>>
>>>> IF Obama was making a claim that he inheretted a bizzillion dollar
>>> debt,
>>>> and
>>>> the best he could do is shave a few hundred million, then fine. He’s
>>>> giving
>>>> it his best shot, and that’s all he can do. BUT he inheretted a >
>>> bizillion
>>>> dollar debt and now it is a two bizillion dollar debt. It’s really four
>>>> bizilion, but why quibble over details?
>>>
>>> he was handed much more, see above.
>>>
>>> OBTW, as you remove poor people from the tax rolls, due to the
>>> fact that the wealthy are absorbing just about every red cent left in
>>> america. the percentage of taxes they pay, will appear larger, because
>>> so many have been removed from the tax rolls, and because the wealthy
>>> make so much more now.
>>>
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> If YOU pay your bills, the debt gets smaller. Same thing for the
>>> government.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> and that is exactly what is happening, debt to gdp is dropping.
>>
>>
>>> If you keep buying furniture, big screens, new cars, dig a pool in the
>>> yard,
>>> and so on, your debt grows whether you pay your bills or not. Same
>>> thing for
>>> government.
>>>
>>
>>
>> then maybe bush should have cleaned things up, before handing the
>> bill to obama.
>>
>>
>>> ObamaCare, bank bailouts, car companies, and so on, all cause the debt to
>>> grow. Obama is making the claim, and you are perpetuating it, that he
>>> took
>>> control of whatever debt there was, and now that it is several times
>>> greater, he’s blaming the guy he got it from.
>>>
>>> You are fed a line of c&*$?%p, and you swallow hook, line, and sinker.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> i do not think to much of obama, he is to conservative. but i also
>> understand what he was handed. you either do not understand that, or
>> you are dishonest.
>
>
>
> Obama is too totalitarian…. But he is Socialist. You are mixing up
> “Conservative” with “Totalitarian” Obama is NOT conservative, he is
> very totalitarian. Obama wants to force all his laws and regulations on
> America even if it takes violating the constitution or procedures of the
> constitution. That is NOT conservative it is Stalin-esque. Castro
> does that and so does Hugo Chavez and they were all more Socialist than
> Conservative. If you know you’re supporting totalitarians then you are
> scum and if you don’t know it you are an idiot.
>
>
> NEXT, Obama was handed what we all knew was getting worse, and he went
> back to the WHITE HOUSE with McCain and BUSH for a meeting to discuss
> it. If they “all” had no idea how bad it was then NONE of them deserve
> to be PRESIDENT(because I knew it and my posts back to pre Obama prove
> it). Obama continued to say he knew how to fix the economy, turns out
> he hasn’t got a clue. His advisers didn’t see the economic crash coming
> so *what use are they* at seeing how to fix it.
>
>
> Socialists will Never be able to fix Capitalism.
>
>
> I said that on day one of Obama and I say it today.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

If you know your supporting totalitarians then you’re scum and if you don’t know it you’re an idiot.

admin — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:48:49 +0000

On 4/23/2012 12:11 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> “Nickname unavailable” wrote in message
> news:4d789092-c5fa-4986-ab43-2919127223f2 @&*$?%m13g2000yqi.googlegroups.com…
> On Apr 21, 10:41 am, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>> “Nickname unavailable” wrote in message
>>
>> news:27b36a16-338b-499e-99f2-95ea035ba907 @&*$?%p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com…
>> On Apr 20, 8:24 pm, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > “Nickname unavailable” wrote in message
>>
>> >news:0b8617a9-d46b-4dd5-95f3-e08a007d66a2 @&*$?%i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com…
>>
>> > On Apr 20, 6:20 pm, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>
>> > > “Josh” wrote in message
>>
>> > >news:jmsme4$i4s$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>
>> > > > On 4/20/2012 5:39 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> > > >> On 4/20/2012 4:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>> > > >>> On 4/20/2012 4:05 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> > > >>>> On 4/19/2012 10:32 PM, Josh wrote:
>> > > >>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> > > >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>> > > >>>>>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative
>> to > > >>>>>>> a
>> > > >>>>>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and
>> all
>> > > >>>>>>> of
>> > > >>>>>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using
>> 2008 as
>> > > >>>>>>> the
>> > > >>>>>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s
>> > > >>>>>>> last
>> > > >>>>>>> budget.
>>
>> > > >>>>>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion
>> > > >>>>>> dollars
>> > > >>>>>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that
>> > > >>>>>> cutting
>> > > >>>>>> that
>> > > >>>>>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>>
>> > > >>>>> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
>> > > >>>>> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>>
>> > > >>>>> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?
>>
>> > >
>> >>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/…
>>
>>
>> > > >>> That link claims the spending increases under Obama are much >
>> > >>> smaller
>> > > >>> than they were under Bush.
>>
>> > > >> Thanks for Noticing, even you catch the WILD Liberal lies….. Now
>> > > >> the
>> > > >> question is why did Obama propose 1.5 trillion in NEW TAXES to
>> > > >> cover
>> > > >> his
>> > > >> 1.5 trillion in NEW SPENDING?
>>
>> > > >> The Federal/National debt is up from $9 trillion at the Obama
>> > > >> coronation
>> > > >> to $16 trillion in 3.5 years? If that isn’t debt what is it?
>> That > > >> is
>> > > >> roughly $7 trillion of NEW OBAMA DEBT. That amounts to an
>> average > > >> of
>> > > >> $2
>> > > >> trillion per year in the last 3.5 years. Bush was in office 8 >
>> > >> years,
>> > > >> had he run the debt up 2 trillion a year it would have been 16
>> > > >> trillion
>> > > >> and Obama’s would NOW be at $23 trillion in debt.
>>
>> > > > I can only conclude you are too stupid to understand why 2009 is
>> the
>> > > > last
>> > > > Bush budget year, since you keep ignoring that fact.
>>
>> > > It doesn’t matter. The debt under Obama is greater than under
>> Bush, > > and
>> > > by
>> > > a
>> > > huge percentage. Let’s give the 2009 budget to Bush. Let’s give
>> him > > the
>> > > 2010
>> > > budget while we are passing stuff around. Obama STILL has
>> ballooned > > the
>> > > national debt.
>>
>> > > Obama is making a claim, and by extension you are making it too,
>> that > > he
>> > > was
>> > > divorced and the judge told him to pay his wife’s credit card
>> bill, > > and
>> > > told
>> > > her to stop using it. He is bitching today that he inherited a
>> balance
>> > > of
>> > > $10,000 but now it is $25,000, and unmanageable. THEN he attempts to
>> > > make
>> > > the claim that it’s ALL her fault.
>>
>> > the debt from drunken sailor spending, and out right crank policies,
>> > does not disappear the very next day after a election. if you put a
>> > idiot in power, and most conservatives are. do not be to surprised if
>> > you have to live with the results for decades to come.
>>
>> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> > It might not disappear, but the debt also does not GROW.
>>
>> sure it does. ever hear of interest. debt must be serviced. plus
>> handing obama a blown out economy, two bungled wars, a unfunded
>> medicare mandate, and two unfunded tax cuts for wealthy parasites, and
>> its a witches brew.
>>
>> > IF Obama was making a claim that he inheretted a bizzillion dollar
>> debt,
>> > and
>> > the best he could do is shave a few hundred million, then fine. He’s
>> > giving
>> > it his best shot, and that’s all he can do. BUT he inheretted a >
>> bizillion
>> > dollar debt and now it is a two bizillion dollar debt. It’s really four
>> > bizilion, but why quibble over details?
>>
>> he was handed much more, see above.
>>
>> OBTW, as you remove poor people from the tax rolls, due to the
>> fact that the wealthy are absorbing just about every red cent left in
>> america. the percentage of taxes they pay, will appear larger, because
>> so many have been removed from the tax rolls, and because the wealthy
>> make so much more now.
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> If YOU pay your bills, the debt gets smaller. Same thing for the
>> government.
>>
>
>
>
>
> and that is exactly what is happening, debt to gdp is dropping.
>
>
>> If you keep buying furniture, big screens, new cars, dig a pool in the
>> yard,
>> and so on, your debt grows whether you pay your bills or not. Same
>> thing for
>> government.
>>
>
>
> then maybe bush should have cleaned things up, before handing the
> bill to obama.
>
>
>> ObamaCare, bank bailouts, car companies, and so on, all cause the debt to
>> grow. Obama is making the claim, and you are perpetuating it, that he
>> took
>> control of whatever debt there was, and now that it is several times
>> greater, he’s blaming the guy he got it from.
>>
>> You are fed a line of c&*$?%p, and you swallow hook, line, and sinker.
>>
>
>
>
> i do not think to much of obama, he is to conservative. but i also
> understand what he was handed. you either do not understand that, or
> you are dishonest.

Obama is too totalitarian…. But he is Socialist. You are mixing up
“Conservative” with “Totalitarian” Obama is NOT conservative, he is
very totalitarian. Obama wants to force all his laws and regulations on
America even if it takes violating the constitution or procedures of the
constitution. That is NOT conservative it is Stalin-esque. Castro
does that and so does Hugo Chavez and they were all more Socialist than
Conservative. If you know your supporting totalitarians then you are
scum and if you don’t know it you are an idiot.

NEXT, Obama was handed what we all knew was getting worse, and he went
back to the WHITE HOUSE with McCain and BUSH for a meeting to discuss
it. If they “all” had no idea how bad it was then NONE of them deserve
to be PRESIDENT(because I knew it and my posts back to pre Obama prove
it). Obama continued to say he knew how to fix the economy, turns out
he hasn’t got a clue. His advisers didn’t see the economic crash coming
so *what use are they* at seeing how to fix it.

Socialists will Never be able to fix Capitalism.

I said that on day one of Obama and I say it today.

markets are not self policing:they are prone tomanipulationthencrash:thecommoditybubbles:Copperis piling up in bondedwarehousesnotbecause theowners planto use it tomake wire/but becausespeculatorsaresitting on itlike gold

admin — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 02:56:29 +0000

On 4/22/2012 1:33 PM, L&*$?%l wrote:
> jim wrote:
>>
>>
>> L&*$?%l wrote:
>>>
>>> jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> L&*$?%l wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the bankers expanding debt is eaten up by government
>>>>>> creating inflation with the money supply….
>>>>>
>>>>> but… there’s no inflation. That’s the problem with the whole
>>>>> story.
>>>>
>>>> there has been inflation post-WW2 and still some today. The fallacy
>>>> is that govt policy is driving that inflation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was gonna dive for a graph, but stopped myself.
>>> of course government policy causes deflation/inflation.
>>
>> Why? a graph would show inflation is not
>> correlated to anything the govt is doing.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> We should avoid nattering over time scales – after 1980,
>>> there have been a few cycles of inflation set against
>>> an overall trend of stability ( the Great Moderation )
>>> plus a handful of cases of deflation.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I am being thick ( for which I apologize in advance )
>>> but please describe this mechanism that causes inflation without
>>> government policy being involved. You’re saying it’s corporate bonds
>>> and equities? I am pretty sure that is impossible; you can’t kite a
>>> stock or bond offering forever.
>>
>> When did I say anything about corporate bonds and equities?
>>
>
> I can’t tell if you’re talking about corporate debt or consumer debt,
> or both.
>
>> Most of what we regard as money circulating in the US economy was
>> created through bank lending. Every loan of X dollars expands the
>> banking systems deposits by X dollars. The private sectors desire
>> to borrow and spend has been the main driver of inflation.
>>
>>
>
> Well, yeah – that’s sort of Banking 101.
>
>>
>>>
>>> There’s stuff under the general rubric of “financialization” as
>>> described in the recent book “Borrow”. IMO, productive enterprise that
>>> returns modest amounts cannot advertise the kinds of returns that
>>> say, a hedge fund can. This drives productive enterprise out.
>>
>> yes that is how it worked until it didn’t.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> But we’re not interested in production for its own sake. The
>>> only real problem with this is if the returns promised by
>>> financialization don’t pan out. And they generally *do*.
>>
>> except when they generally don’t.
>>
>>>
>>> Some of this is highly speculative in nature, but speculation
>>> doesn’t necessarily drive up prices.
>>
>> Depends what the markets are speculating on. If its rising prices
>> then it necessarily does drive up prices for a while.
>>
>
> Emphasis “for a while”.
>
>> The point with respect to commodities was not the
>> speculation ,but where the money that is financing
>> it comes from.
>>
>>
>>
>
> So that has to be said? Isn’t that most basic fact there is about
> debt money?
>
>>
>>
>>> You’ll get bubbles here and
>>> there, but they correct. My understanding is that this is overall
>>> a good thing – as demand and supply data emerge, prices adjust.
>>>
>>>> It is the buying power of the private sector that has been mostly
>>>> driving inflation and that buying power was augmented by credit
>>>> expansion that grew much faster than the underlying capability of the
>>>> private sector to produce.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So the standard story is that government policy controls
>>> that buying power. In one version, this is through interest
>>> rates and opening up the Fed window.
>>
>> That standard story is a fairy tale. If the events of
>> 2008 did not convince you that the government has no such
>> control then nothing will.
>>
>>
>
> I think the better corrective of the standard story is that they are
> doing it wrong. Sweden has used its central banking system properly,
> and recovered more quickly.
>
>>>
>>>> Now total US debt is falling relative to GDP and that means total
>>>> buying power is no longer expanding.
>>>>
>>>> The belief in coming inflation motivates people to borrow and spend
>>>> more because they believe what they buy today will cost more tomorrow
>>>> and what they borrow today will cost less to pay back with inflated
>>>> dollars.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> But it is currently tenuous belief
>> and more and more are losing faith.
>>
>
>
> That took long enough.

That belief that people have that they need to buy something today
because it will cost more tomorrow… is the *VELOCITY* and it’s bad
when it’s either high or it becomes low.

Because when it’s high, people are scared and want get rid of the
dollars before they become worth, LESS and LESS.

HYPER INFLATION is a problem that increases velocity. When people are
spending as soon as they get the money, it speaks to the confidence and
whether they believe the government propaganda.

Carter had STAGFLATION and Obama is heading for HYPER INFLATION.

Both like Government regulations and spending money.

Next year we will see the fruits of Obama’s 4 years of economic war on
*We The People*

Create an Income TAX amendment says that the Federal Income tax canNOT be raised until ALL deficit spending is paid off.

admin — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:09:21 +0000

On 4/22/2012 7:57 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> The simple fact is, using your own figures, the income tax
>>>> from the top 10% of income earners funds about 18%
>>>> of federal govt expenditures.
>>>
>>> So? The income tax collected from this group is 70% of income taxes
>>> collected. That is the topic.
>>
>> The problem is they don’t earn 70% of all the money earned….
>>
>
> The problem is that they own Congress and thus get
> to define most of their sources of income as not being
> earned income and therefore subject to less tax.

That certainly is part of the mix…. but money earned and that you
have paid tax on….. is also eaten up by inflation. Which is
essentially government printing money. That is a tax so the inflation
that is taxed on money you hold and receive interest on is actually
higher than you are pretending. Add the inflation rate to the capital
gains rate to get the real rate of tax on “money” that’s NOT earned income.

It is a variable Tax and the inflation tax is low at the moment buy it
will be high in the near future. The longer the inflation tax is kept
artificially low for this Depression and to make Obama look good, the
longer and higher it will be later. Anyone with cash during this high
inflation will be paying the inflation tax.

> And the problem that creates is not the loss of tax
> revenue but the distortion it creates in markets as
> large amounts of money move away from productive
> enterprises to totally unproductive manipulation of
> capital because of the incentive to avoid taxes.

*Correct* – “They will seek lower taxes” and that’s why raising taxes is
a bad idea… at least in BAD times it’s a real bad idea. In good
times it will suppress the GDP by as much as 10% as was done after WWII
when GDP dropped after taxes were raised dramatically.

Create an Income TAX amendment says that the Federal Income tax can NOT be raised until ALL deficit spending is paid off.

admin — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:44:57 +0000

On 4/21/2012 4:49 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> “jim” < "sjedgingN0Sp"@m @&*$?%mwt,net> wrote in message
> news:-ImdndQTI_fQQA_SnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d @&*$?%bright.net…
>>
>>
>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>> “jim” < "sjedgingN0Sp"@m @&*$?%mwt,net> wrote in message
>>> news:BsmdnZwO6tnVjQ_SnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d @&*$?%bright.net…
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> “jim” < "sjedgingN0Sp"@m @&*$?%mwt,net> wrote in message
>>> >> news:J-WdneXLKNVNbgzSnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d @&*$?%bright.net…
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> 70% of the total taxes are collected from 10% of taxpayers.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > No that is not true.
>>> >> > 70% of income tax is collected from 10% of taxpayers, but
>>> >> > income tax is only 30% of federal tax revenue and pays for
>>> >> > only 25% of federal expenditures.
>>> >>
>>> >> But the other revenues are not in question here, only the income tax.
>>> >
>>> > You said “total taxes”.
>>>
>>> Sorry. Total INCOME Taxes. Income taxes are the discussion, so total
>>> taxes
>>> in that context would mean income taxes.
>>
>> No. Total taxes means all of the taxes combined.
>>
>
> Not if the topic as per the Subject Line is INCOME TAX AMENDMENT … and
> the discussion is about income taxes.
>
> In any case, I rephrased per your criticism to 10% of the top income tax
> payers pay 70% of the income tax receipts. That’s fact. It’s also fact
> that 40-some percent of Americans pay no income tax at all.
>
>
>
>> The simple fact is, using your own figures, the income tax
>> from the top 10% of income earners funds about 18%
>> of federal govt expenditures.
>
> So? The income tax collected from this group is 70% of income taxes
> collected. That is the topic.

The problem is they don’t earn 70% of all the money earned….

So why do they pay more in tax than they earn of the GDP.

If they earn 70% of all the money why NOT pay tax on that 70% that they
earned. Why would they pay tax on more than they earned?

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

admin — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:41:03 +0000

On 4/21/2012 8:17 AM, Josh wrote:
> On 4/21/2012 12:15 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 4/19/2012 10:32 PM, Josh wrote:
>>> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative to a
>>>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and all of
>>>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using 2008 as the
>>>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s last
>>>>> budget.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion dollars
>>>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that cutting
>>>> that
>>>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>>>
>>> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
>>> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>>>
>>> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So you say Clinton was responsible for the Oct, 2000 to Oct, 2001 budget
>> when the deficit and economy crashed and both went in the dumper rather
>> than being “balanced” or getting better? And Obama is going to be
>> responsible for Oct, 2012 to Oct, 2013 and will actually be responsible
>> for the Great Economic meltdown of 2013 while Romney is President.
>
> In fiscal 2001 (yes, Clinton‘s last budget), there was a surplus of over
> $100B. Fiscal year’s 2013 budget is Obama’s.

Who will sign it into law?

>> Doesn’t that mean Clinton is responsible for all the spending up to and
>> including 9/11/2001 and so 9/11 was really on Clinton‘s watch while
>> Clinton was funding the FBI and the CIA and the NSA and cutting the
>> Military and Clinton was leaving the Nation unprotected with his Budget
>> that he was responsible for.
>
> FBI, CIA, and NSA funding through September of 2001 is part of Clinton‘s
> record. What extent that funding is to blame for 9/11, as opposed to
> things Bush had control of, is a matter opinion.
>
>> This is a very interesting way to place blame, it’s like blaming the
>> Dead guy for the mistakes.
>
> There are of course many, many things that the current President is
> accountable for in his first 9 months but funding levels aren’t one of
> them. Thus, your conclusion that my analysis leads to always
> blaming/crediting the last guy is not sound. I have made a factual
> objective observation limited to the budget. How people use that fact
> to dish out blame/credit is a separate issue not at issue here.

The President write a lot of Executive Orders that effect spending and
he does it in the first 9 months also….

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

admin — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 04:15:40 +0000

On 4/19/2012 10:32 PM, Josh wrote:
> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative to a
>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and all of
>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using 2008 as the
>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s last
>>> budget.
>>
>>
>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion dollars
>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that cutting that
>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>
> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>
> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?

So you say Clinton was responsible for the Oct, 2000 to Oct, 2001 budget
when the deficit and economy crashed and both went in the dumper rather
than being “balanced” or getting better? And Obama is going to be
responsible for Oct, 2012 to Oct, 2013 and will actually be responsible
for the Great Economic meltdown of 2013 while Romney is President.

Doesn’t that mean Clinton is responsible for all the spending up to and
including 9/11/2001 and so 9/11 was really on Clinton‘s watch while
Clinton was funding the FBI and the CIA and the NSA and cutting the
Military and Clinton was leaving the Nation unprotected with his Budget
that he was responsible for.

This is a very interesting way to place blame, it’s like blaming the
Dead guy for the mistakes. I worked with a person that did that…..
But it sure explained what kind of person he was if he was willing to
soil the reputation of the dead guy just keep himself looking good.

It tells us what kind of person you are.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

admin — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:28:13 +0000

On 4/20/2012 8:38 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Apr 20, 5:02 pm, Josh wrote:
>> On 4/20/2012 5:39 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 4/20/2012 4:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:05 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:32 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative to a
>>>>>>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and all of
>>>>>>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using 2008 as the
>>>>>>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s last
>>>>>>>> budget.
>>
>>>>>>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion dollars
>>>>>>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that cutting
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>>
>>>>>> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
>>>>>> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>>
>>>>>> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?
>>
>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/…
>>
>>>> That link claims the spending increases under Obama are much smaller
>>>> than they were under Bush.
>>
>>> Thanks for Noticing, even you catch the WILD Liberal lies….. Now the
>>> question is why did Obama propose 1.5 trillion in NEW TAXES to cover his
>>> 1.5 trillion in NEW SPENDING?
>>
>>> The Federal/National debt is up from $9 trillion at the Obama coronation
>>> to $16 trillion in 3.5 years? If that isn’t debt what is it? That is
>>> roughly $7 trillion of NEW OBAMA DEBT. That amounts to an average of $2
>>> trillion per year in the last 3.5 years. Bush was in office 8 years,
>>> had he run the debt up 2 trillion a year it would have been 16 trillion
>>> and Obama’s would NOW be at $23 trillion in debt.
>>
>> I can only conclude you are too stupid to understand why 2009 is the
>> last Bush budget year, since you keep ignoring that fact.
>
> i said that to him years ago.

Has Obama ever signed a budget into law?

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

admin — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:26:55 +0000

On 4/20/2012 8:44 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Apr 20, 6:14 pm, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>> “Josh” wrote in message
>>
>> news:jmqhru$3k2$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative to a
>>>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and all of
>>>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using 2008 as the
>>>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s last
>>>>> budget.
>>
>>>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion dollars
>>>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that cutting that
>>>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>>
>>> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
>>> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>>
>>> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?
>>
>> Because it’s true?
>
> he did not.

How did we get from $9 trillion to $16 trillion in NATIONAL DEBT within
3.5 years?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

admin — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:24:02 +0000

On 4/20/2012 8:46 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Apr 20, 6:20 pm, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>> “Josh” wrote in message
>>
>> news:jmsme4$i4s$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 4/20/2012 5:39 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:05 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:32 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative to a
>>>>>>>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and all of
>>>>>>>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using 2008 as the
>>>>>>>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s last
>>>>>>>>> budget.
>>
>>>>>>>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion dollars
>>>>>>>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that cutting
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>>
>>>>>>> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
>>>>>>> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>>
>>>>>>> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?
>>
>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/…
>>
>>>>> That link claims the spending increases under Obama are much smaller
>>>>> than they were under Bush.
>>
>>>> Thanks for Noticing, even you catch the WILD Liberal lies….. Now the
>>>> question is why did Obama propose 1.5 trillion in NEW TAXES to cover his
>>>> 1.5 trillion in NEW SPENDING?
>>
>>>> The Federal/National debt is up from $9 trillion at the Obama coronation
>>>> to $16 trillion in 3.5 years? If that isn’t debt what is it? That is
>>>> roughly $7 trillion of NEW OBAMA DEBT. That amounts to an average of $2
>>>> trillion per year in the last 3.5 years. Bush was in office 8 years,
>>>> had he run the debt up 2 trillion a year it would have been 16 trillion
>>>> and Obama’s would NOW be at $23 trillion in debt.
>>
>>> I can only conclude you are too stupid to understand why 2009 is the last
>>> Bush budget year, since you keep ignoring that fact.
>>
>> It doesn’t matter. The debt under Obama is greater than under Bush, and by a
>> huge percentage. Let’s give the 2009 budget to Bush. Let’s give him the 2010
>> budget while we are passing stuff around. Obama STILL has ballooned the
>> national debt.
>>
>> Obama is making a claim, and by extension you are making it too, that he was
>> divorced and the judge told him to pay his wife’s credit card bill, and told
>> her to stop using it. He is bitching today that he inherited a balance of
>> $10,000 but now it is $25,000, and unmanageable. THEN he attempts to make
>> the claim that it’s ALL her fault.
>
> the debt from drunken sailor spending, and out right crank policies,
> does not disappear the very next day after a election. if you put a
> idiot in power, and most conservatives are. do not be to surprised if
> you have to live with the results for decades to come.

Obama and democrats had the House the Senate and the Presidency, they
could pass any law they please… they had 2 years of being all
powerful and *ALL* they did was run up the Debt.

They fixed NOTHING.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

admin — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:09:51 +0000

On 4/20/2012 8:58 PM, Josh wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 7:20 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>> “Josh” wrote in message
>> news:jmsme4$i4s$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>> On 4/20/2012 5:39 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:05 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:32 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative to a
>>>>>>>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and all of
>>>>>>>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using 2008 as the
>>>>>>>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s last
>>>>>>>>> budget.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion dollars
>>>>>>>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that cutting
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
>>>>>>> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/07/25/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/debt%20changes%20under%20bush%20obama.jpg?uuid=qZCizrbZEeCYzBMQCYwsyQ
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That link claims the spending increases under Obama are much smaller
>>>>> than they were under Bush.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for Noticing, even you catch the WILD Liberal lies….. Now the
>>>> question is why did Obama propose 1.5 trillion in NEW TAXES to cover
>>>> his
>>>> 1.5 trillion in NEW SPENDING?
>>>>
>>>> The Federal/National debt is up from $9 trillion at the Obama
>>>> coronation
>>>> to $16 trillion in 3.5 years? If that isn’t debt what is it? That is
>>>> roughly $7 trillion of NEW OBAMA DEBT. That amounts to an average of $2
>>>> trillion per year in the last 3.5 years. Bush was in office 8 years,
>>>> had he run the debt up 2 trillion a year it would have been 16 trillion
>>>> and Obama’s would NOW be at $23 trillion in debt.
>>>
>>> I can only conclude you are too stupid to understand why 2009 is the
>>> last Bush budget year, since you keep ignoring that fact.
>>
>>
>> It doesn’t matter. The debt under Obama is greater than under Bush, and
>> by a huge percentage. Let’s give the 2009 budget to Bush. Let’s give him
>> the 2010 budget while we are passing stuff around. Obama STILL has
>> ballooned the national debt.
>>
>> Obama is making a claim, and by extension you are making it too, that he
>> was divorced and the judge told him to pay his wife’s credit card bill,
>> and told her to stop using it. He is bitching today that he inherited a
>> balance of $10,000 but now it is $25,000, and unmanageable. THEN he
>> attempts to make the claim that it’s ALL her fault.
>
> I have made only one claim: that the claim that the deficit went up
> 100% under Obama is false.

I believe I have proven that Obama is increasing the deficit by about $2
trillion a year on average by pointing out the National debt when Obama
took office and what it is today, can you prove that Bush increased the
debt at more than 1 trillion a year on average over his presidency?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Maybe a little visual stimulation will shock you back into reality….

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

admin — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:06:54 +0000

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

admin — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:39:58 +0000

On 4/20/2012 4:58 PM, Josh wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 4:05 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 4/19/2012 10:32 PM, Josh wrote:
>>> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative to a
>>>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and all of
>>>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using 2008 as the
>>>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s last
>>>>> budget.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion dollars
>>>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that cutting
>>>> that
>>>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>>>
>>> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
>>> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>>>
>>> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?
>>
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/07/25/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/debt%20changes%20under%20bush%20obama.jpg?uuid=qZCizrbZEeCYzBMQCYwsyQ
>>
>
> That link claims the spending increases under Obama are much smaller
> than they were under Bush.

Thanks for Noticing, even you catch the WILD Liberal lies….. Now the
question is why did Obama propose 1.5 trillion in NEW TAXES to cover his
1.5 trillion in NEW SPENDING?

The Federal/National debt is up from $9 trillion at the Obama coronation
to $16 trillion in 3.5 years? If that isn’t debt what is it? That is
roughly $7 trillion of NEW OBAMA DEBT. That amounts to an average of $2
trillion per year in the last 3.5 years. Bush was in office 8 years,
had he run the debt up 2 trillion a year it would have been 16 trillion
and Obama’s would NOW be at $23 trillion in debt.

SO NOW we know that Obama is leading the pack on wasteful spending with
himself maybe being the most expensive education the American people
have ever received.

Socialism is something we just can’t afford. Like Liberals say we need
to pay for tax cuts, well… you need to pay for Socialism and you
haven’t done it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/19/obama-to-present-balanced-plan-to-tackle-deficit/

Or are you just saying that Obama is happy to pay down Republican
spending rather than cut that republican waste out of the Federal
Government? And why would Obama pay for Republican waste rather than
cutting it out of the budget?

You see how your Liberal lies get you in a box every time.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

admin — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 02:08:03 +0000

On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 4/19/2012 7:22 AM, Josh wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 4/19/2012 12:02 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:10 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:02 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 7:35 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 3:58 PM, P&*$?%s wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 7:03 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 12:09 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 2:31 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ROTFLMAO!
>>
>>>>>>>>>> NOT if he cuts 3% of real actual spending for every 1% in tax hike.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> The biggest problem is Governments inability to make any “real”
>>>>>>>>>> cuts to
>>>>>>>>>> its own spending. Every time they cut it’s cutting projected
>>>>>>>>>> growth or
>>>>>>>>>> making cuts that are non existent expenditures.
>>
>>>>>>>>> ***. Clinton reduced spending relative to GDP.
>>
>>>>>>>> Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Your statement encompasses all
>>>>>>>> three,
>>>>>>>> nice work!
>>
>>>>>>>> Clinton did not reduce spending. He increased spending by close to
>>>>>>>> 30%.
>>>>>>>> GDP increased faster.
>>
>>>>>>> He said spending was reduced relative to GDP. That is factually
>>>>>>> correct.
>>
>>>>>> So what does that mean Obama has done relative….. tell us the
>>>>>> numbers.
>>
>>>>> In the final- Bush fiscal year (2009), spending was 25% of GDP. It’s
>>>>> stayed flat since then.
>>
>>>> HHHHHhhhhhhmmmmm
>>
>>>> The GDP is flat or falling and Obama has doubled or tripped the Deficit,
>>>> what kind of math did you use to make that stay at 25%?
>>
>>>> Your numbers are not making any sense….
>>
>>>> Perhaps you need to put them on paper and then post them here.
>>
>>> In fiscal 2009 (last Bush budget), spending was 25% of GDP, the deficit
>>> was 10% of GDP. In each of the first two Obama years, the deficit was
>>> 9% of GDP.
>>
>>> Source:
>>> http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/01-31-201…
>>
>>> Appendix F, Page 133.
>>
>> I’m Still not there yet, HOW did the Deficit double, that is a 100%
>> increase from 2008 to 2011 and GDP remain roughly the same $14 trillion
>> and spending go down from 2011 to 2012 and 3598 – 3601 in billions. It
>> was a decrease of a measly 3 billion dollars…. That is well within
>> the margin of error and it was all fudged to make it just over the line.
>
> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative to a
> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and all of
> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using 2008 as the
> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s last
> budget.

the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion dollars
became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that cutting that
by 1% is an accomplishment?

You may be that stupid but I’m NOT. Obama spent a trillion in deficit
spending and cut a billion off the deficit he created…. What a joke.

*TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE*

“below that recorded last year but still higher (in percentage,terms) than any deficit between 1947 and 2008″

admin — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:45:00 +0000

On 4/19/2012 7:22 AM, Josh wrote:
> On 4/19/2012 12:02 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 4/18/2012 10:10 PM, Josh wrote:
>>> On 4/18/2012 10:02 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/2012 7:35 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>> On 4/18/2012 3:58 PM, P&*$?%s wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 7:03 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 12:09 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 2:31 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ROTFLMAO!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NOT if he cuts 3% of real actual spending for every 1% in tax hike.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The biggest problem is Governments inability to make any “real”
>>>>>>>> cuts to
>>>>>>>> its own spending. Every time they cut it’s cutting projected
>>>>>>>> growth or
>>>>>>>> making cuts that are non existent expenditures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ***. Clinton reduced spending relative to GDP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Your statement encompasses all
>>>>>> three,
>>>>>> nice work!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clinton did not reduce spending. He increased spending by close to
>>>>>> 30%.
>>>>>> GDP increased faster.
>>>>>
>>>>> He said spending was reduced relative to GDP. That is factually
>>>>> correct.
>>>>
>>>> So what does that mean Obama has done relative….. tell us the
>>>> numbers.
>>>
>>> In the final- Bush fiscal year (2009), spending was 25% of GDP. It’s
>>> stayed flat since then.
>>>
>>
>>
>> HHHHHhhhhhhmmmmm
>>
>> The GDP is flat or falling and Obama has doubled or tripped the Deficit,
>> what kind of math did you use to make that stay at 25%?
>>
>> Your numbers are not making any sense….
>>
>>
>> Perhaps you need to put them on paper and then post them here.
>
> In fiscal 2009 (last Bush budget), spending was 25% of GDP, the deficit
> was 10% of GDP. In each of the first two Obama years, the deficit was
> 9% of GDP.
>
> Source:
> http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/01-31-2012_Outlook.pdf
>
>
> Appendix F, Page 133.

I’m Still not there yet, HOW did the Deficit double, that is a 100%
increase from 2008 to 2011 and GDP remain roughly the same $14 trillion
and spending go down from 2011 to 2012 and 3598 – 3601 in billions. It
was a decrease of a measly 3 billion dollars…. That is well within
the margin of error and it was all fudged to make it just over the line.

You lose the math yet again, I don’t need another group telling me the
same thing without any explanation. I just need to know how you can
have the GDP stay roughly the same and double the deficits over 4
years….. and yet the percentage didn’t change. You and they say we
are now down 1% when I know we are actually up at least 99-102%

Obama was the one that ran the deficit up by 100% and NOW he is
supposedly reducing his own deficit spending by 1% and you call that
reducing the deficit, I call it hiking the deficit by 99%…..

I’m speaking in terms of post Bush and you are speaking in terms of
12 months of Obama’s manipulation and forecasting with rose colored
glasses on to make it all look good.

“You” see this as a turn in the right direction while “I” see it as the
continuation or flat GDP with the same doubled 100% deficit increases.
You seem to think a one or 4 year 100% increase in deficits is OK as
long as you cut 1% on paper?

I think we are still flat, we have yet to fix any spending problems we
are simply coasting with the same 99% – 102% larger deficit and your
statement that we are cutting deficit as percentage of GDP is a lie
that’s based on even more lies from Obama and the CBO….. the GDP
numbers are fudged and then on top of that 1% spending is within the
margin of error so it may be the other way and be a (-1%) growth in GDP
and the Deficit may have grown by +1% leaving us with a larger GDP to
Deficit ratio.

Obama’s government has LOST more than 3 billion dollars and can’t tell
you where it is…. it’s Obvious when you look at the Wild spending
that Obama and the CBO and the Democrats have no way to accurately
calculate the Deficit to GDP accurately enough to tell you we have a 3
billion dollar reduction in deficit.

I’m Sad to say that ever since the CBO head (an independent agency) was
summoned to the White House, and had a face to face meeting with Obama,
that agency has been less than respected and believable.

There was NO reason for such a meeting and it created a loss of any
neutral standing the CBO had. We have no idea of what Obama told the
CBO HEAD in private. An “independent agency” should only accept written
letters from the Politicians like Obama. Letters that are all PUBLIC
and that way we can see what is being threatened and extorted from the CBO.

*FROM YOUR CITE*

["To provide a benchmark against which potential policy
changes can be measured, the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) constructs its baseline estimates of federal
revenues and spending under the assumption that current
laws generally remain unchanged. In that case, CBO estimates
that *the federal budget will show a deficit* of nearly
$1.1 trillion in fiscal year 2012 (see Table 1-1). As a percentage
of gross domestic product (GDP), that shortfall
will be 7.0 percent, which is nearly 2 percentage points
*below that recorded last year but still higher* (in percentage
terms) *than any deficit between 1947 and 2008* (see
Figure 1-1)."]

Very interesting here that they admit in a rather sly way that it’s
still a higher “Deficit to GDP” percentage than it was from 1947 to
2008. So as I have said we are up +100% under Obama and then Obama
managed to get the numbers fudged enough to claim a 1% decline from his
100% deficit hike…. THE NET GAIN IN THE DEFICIT IS STILL 99% even if
the lies were NOT lies..

So far all “”ESTIMATES” have been fudged to the better side, to say that
things are better than they are, the result is that we can expect the
2012 numbers to be far worse than the Obama Government‘s rosy
prognostications. It never was and never will measure up to the number
that are being used. That means those numbers you have been shouting
about like the 100% more deficit only being 99% larger than when Obama
came in, are NOT very good numbers for you and Obama.

The Economy will continue to be strangled by the Government and its
deficits, and from 1947 – 2008 we were in better shape and Obama is the
one that created this disproportional deficit to GDP mess. Obama wasted
all that money. Obama is the problem. Obama is spending. Obama has “We
The People” upside-down in this government like many people are
upside-down in their house payments.

Where did ALL these banks get ALL this excessive money to loan?,,It’smyunderstandingthat the Federal Reserve sets MONEY POLICY.

admin — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:02:32 +0000

On 4/16/2012 11:22 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Apr 16, 7:50 pm, “Bill Graham” wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 4/16/2012 9:23 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>>>> On Apr 15, 9:44 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 15, 9:34 pm, “Bill Graham” wrote:
>>
>>>>>> and the current government deficit is the reslt of their
>>>>>> bad spending decisions, too.
>>>> …
>>
>>>>> please institute austerity, then we will no longer have to listen
>>>>> to your type.
>>
>>>> Please don’t do it until the Fed considers tightening credit then
>>>> do it sufficiently and only sufficiently to keep interest rates low.
>>
>>> The damage is done and it will get worse…. spending will make it
>>> worse but it won’t get better. Austerity will make things worse but
>>> there will be a way out once things begin to balance out and spending
>>> begins to come down to the level of Tax receipts.
>>
>>>> When the Fed starts to raise interest rates then we know the
>>>> bankers are consdered about inflation.
>>
>>> I was concerned long before that, their spending is the cause of
>>> inflation because someone has to pay for that spending. And they can
>>> either raise taxes (which is inflation) or the government can print
>>> money which devalues the dollar and creates inflation or they borrow
>>> money which has to be paid by tax payers at some point and when they
>>> pay it that will create inflation…. At the moment Obama has done
>>> all three in a giant way.
>>
>>> inflation is here and going to get worse as the cost of Obama’s short
>>> sighted policies comes due.
>>
>>> Notice the government figures inflation and they do it without
>>> including “energy” “food” or “Taxes” yet all three are going up
>>> fast, gasoline alone has inflated 100% over 3.5 years. That would
>>> be an average 30% inflation rate.
>>
>>>> Sure the current government deficit is the result of Bush era
>>>> bad spending decisions.
>>
>>> Obama has done the same and worse than Bush did.
>>
>>>> These things can’t be corrected on
>>>> a dime without negatively affecting the economy.
>>
>>> They can’t be fixed at all if you ignore the problem which is
>>> Government spending.
>>
>>>> Good spending
>>>> decisions take time to correct bad spending decisions.
>>
>>> Obama has NOT made any good spending decisions.
>>
>>>> The
>>>> economy still isn’t recovering very well and it won’t until the
>>>> middle class starts getting raises and income distribution starts
>>>> returning to more rational norms.
>>
>>> The economy is still in the process of crashing and burning. Obama
>>> has fixed NOTHING, Obama is making it worse. We the tax payers will
>>> pay for this, and that will cause the inflation and the deeper
>>> collapse that is coming.
>>
>> I agree that Obama has made it worse. You can’t spend your way out of debt,
>> in spite of the Keneysian Economy idiots. I have been listening to their
>> whacko theories all of my adult life. They were worng when I was in college
>> back in the 70′s and they are still wrong today.
>
> have fun explaining away the period from 1933-1981. and you can’t:)))

33-41 was Depression….. 1941-62 was higher taxes and lower GDP and
the economic spike from a war that we won and were no physically damaged
other than Perl Harbor.

Much of the world civilization was destroyed we were hardly even effected.

In 1962 Kennedy lowered income taxes. And the economy took off again.
Then it was a series of slowly lowering taxes to keep the economy
growing and a series of Liberal-Socialist welfare programs bleeding away
that enhanced productivity. In the end we have been trying to
maintain the huge government and welfare base, it is NOW to a point that
the economy can’t support all the government give away programs because
of government interference and all the misc. fees and taxes.

Cut the government….. Cut the taxes…… cut the regulations…

That will stop Liberal-Socialists from cutting my opportunity.

MMMMMmmmmm MMMmmmmmmm MMMMMMmmmmmm… Barack Hussein Obama.

admin — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 06:00:00 +0000

On 4/16/2012 12:55 AM, In a very dark China Blue, China Blue condition.
wrote:
> In article <4F8BA2BD.20108 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com>,
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>> Do they have 16 trillion in a hidden Swiss Bank account? If NOT then
>> the government owes more than it has on hand and is out of money until
>> they have the 16 trillion to pay their debts and create a positive cash
>> flow. they can print or borrow more but that isn’t theirs so they are
>
> If the government could generate a positive cash flow, it could turn it over to
> a private business. Governments provide the services they do because they are
> not profitable, idiot.

Positive cash flow means they take in enough to pay all their bills and
have some left over, Democrats can’t do that until they pay off the 16
trillion in debt. When that happens they can rebate the excess tax to
the taxpayers. They don’t need to be “a for profit” to have a
positive cash flow of taking in more than they have spent.

They just need to spend less.

If the yearly deficit were ZERO they would NOT be in a positive cash
flow until they pay off the money they have already borrowed. They could
have positive net cash for the year but they are still 16 trillion
behind on the spending curve and they wouldn’t even put a dent in it.

At a minimum it would take more than 20 years to pay off the National
debt even if they could reverse the Trillion dollar deficits to a
trillion dollar surplus. That means that Obama/Democrats need to start
today with a plan to NOT just cut one trillion in spending but to
increase revenue by an additional trillion. Yes you need to pull $2
trillion dollars out of your Democrat a&*$?%s every year for more than 20
years to just get us back to ZERO.

The entire GDP is only fudged up to be 14 trillion dollars a year and
I’m told 17% is medical and 18% is tax and that make 35% then there’s
food and housing and other fixed costs, so you’re going to strip $2
trillion out of the GDP each year when there is maybe only 50% of GDP
that is still accessible to the private sector to use to grow? That’s
like you having 50% of your paycheck to maintain your home/roof and add
a new room for the kid that’s on the way and all your other growth needs
and pay all your bills.

The real GDP that would get to the private sector for investment will
be about $5 trillion dollars…

The Nation will shut down, well I mean even more than it has already
under Obama “the wasteful spender”, no one will be able to expand or
grow or create any wealth and the tax revenue will drop from the 1.5
trillion and it will make paying off the National debt an even longer
term proposition maybe 40 years or 60.

Reality says there will be no trillion dollar cut in spending and NOT a
trillion dollar tax increase…. and that means no decrease in the
National debt and actually 10 – 20 years of $1 trillion dollar increases
in the debt….. so 50 – 60 trillion is likely rather than going back
to zero.

MMMMMmmmmm MMMmmmmmmm MMMMMMmmmmmm… Barack Hussein Obama.

>> still out of money.
>
> Meanwhile people continue to pay for the privilege of lending to the US.

sure they do, that’s why QE2 and other printing/borrowing, money
laundering is used to buy U.S. Debt. There is already a stampede
running away from the U.s. Debt.

It is a FEDERAL PROBLEM NOT A NATIONAL PROBLEM.

admin — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:12:22 +0000

On 4/5/2012 1:03 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> RD Sandman wrote:
>
>>
>> Why do you think that the debt is going up? Because he has cut spending?
>>
>
> The debt is going up because if it didn’t go up
> there would be a depression due to the massive private
> sector debt overhang from the debt bubble years.
>

That was a “YES” wasn’t it

> Private sector spending consists of what the private
> sector gets in income plus what it borrows. Before the 2008
> meltdown the private sector was borrowing 30% of GDP and
> then the massive run up of debt came to an end
>

And that is a “THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER” ?

> http://comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000/530.pdf
>
>
> when Congress moves to balance the budget

Obama will have them all executed?

> there will be
> a depression much worse than the Great Depression,

Already been at that doorstep for 4 years, depression is here ringing
the door bell, we only need Obama to unlock the door by spending more
and more.

> because
> this time the private debt is far worse than what caused the
> Great Depression.

Government is the problem. The Federal Reserve and Congress and Obama.
It is a FEDERAL PROBLEM NOT A NATIONAL PROBLEM.

What is bad is taxes as punishment and taxes that are excessive, the taxes themselves are benign but become a problem when Liberalism is applied to the tax code.

admin — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 22:24:54 +0000

On 4/3/2012 4:34 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> jim” < "sjedgingN0Sp wrote:
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>> When you borrow maney, you have to pay the interest on that loan as
>>> well as pay for your living expenses every month. So, your lifestyle
>>> suffers, or at least, should suffer. But the government borrows
>>> money and doesn’t have to worry about that, because they just borrow
>>> more to pay those interest charges, and continue to live high on the
>>> hog as if there were no tomorrow. So when will this, “bubble” burst,
>>> and who will eventually pay the piper when it does? Sooner or later,
>>> there will be so much dust under the rug that nobody will be able to
>>> climb over it…..And what is strange to me is that only us
>>> conservatives can see that bump in the rug growing…..
>>
>>
>> The problem that caused the current financial meltdown
>> is the total US debt. But since 2008 the
>> problem is no longer growing. Just like
>> the Great Depression the ratio of debt to GDP
>> is now declining.
>>
>> http://www.comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000/530.pdf
>>
>> It will be another 15 years before the debt is
>> back down to a level where the economy is not
>> hampered by debt.
>
> I wonder how much of the debt reduction is because of inflated dollars?
> I am on a fixed income. I aqm living off of my savings and investments.
> When they print money, it is just like they were reaching into the banks
> vault and stealing my savings. Every time I go to the store the stuff I
> buy has gone up a few cents.

You Know I noticed this 6 months to a year ago and posted the same thing
you are and the Liberals poo-poo the whole thing and say that Obama has
fixed everything and we are recovering… I just see us sliding farther
off the cliff.

> They tell me that inflation is near zero,
> but then why is the bottle of salsa I paid 99 cents for five years ago
> now selling for over $1.50?

They tell you it’s near ZERO because FOOD and ENERGY are NOT part of the
inflation index, and you know what else is missing, TAXES AND GOVERNMENT
FEES are missing from the “inflation” calculations.

It’s like the JOBS, the unemployment numbers are fudged also. It’s all
hanging by a thread.

> I started out by withdrawing 1/2 of one
> percent of my savings every month to live on, but today I am withdrawing
> 1% a month. I thought at the beginning that it would last forever,
> because it would earn as much as I was withdrawing, but now I can see a
> very clear end point where I will be broke in another 15 years.
> Fortunately, both my wife and I are in our middle 70′s, so it is
> unlikely that we will go broke before we die. But it could happen.

It’ll only get worse from here, inflation will rise and for now Obama
and the Federal reserve will keep the interest rates artificially low to
keep the economy from cratering all together on Obama’s watch. You’ll
be squeezed in the middle, “too bad” but I’d say 15 years is a rosy
scenario.

Maybe a part time job or raise some of your own food or cut the cable TV
and go back to an antenna and cancel the worthless news paper or buy and
sell a few things every month, maybe put it on eBay and sell the junk in
your closet or junk in other peoples closets. Rent out your house for a
profit, and live in a cheaper trailer park or rent a small cheap
apartment for a few years. Close in the garage and rent it.

I’m planing on raising and canning/drying more home made food, I don’t
eat out and I sold my cars and trucks…. I find any way I can to
avoid Federal taxes…. No car so I have no FEDERAL gas tax and no tire
tax.

Obama is a Constitutional scholar?

admin — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 20:42:35 +0000

On 4/3/2012 3:00 PM, Ruut66 wrote:
> On Apr 3, 5:00 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> Obama says the court should find ObamaCare constitutional; because he
>> thinks it’s a good idea?
>
> Cool would come to mind. If only it would kill off the 17%
> spendingspree in GDP on health and go down to about 12% like we have
> in Europe. Sure the insurance companies will suffer, so will the
> ambulance chasers, big pharma and pencilpushers. They’ll have to start
> working for a living. If there are folks out there that think Canada
> has such a great HC system? They came in at number 23 on this
> asessment. Obama had a look at the topsystems. No not the Brits!

The first to suffer and the ultimate ones to suffer are We The People,
NOT “lawyers” and the like.

I have seen what the British National Health care did. I wouldn’t put
my pets or farm animals in that kind of system.

Obama has no power under the constitution to do any of it so it really
didn’t matter why he thinks anything, that power is NOT delegated to the
congress or the President or the judiciary… that means all the
Supreme Court can do is find that they have no jurisdiction to hear any
case involving this law that was passed by people with NO power to vote,
veto, sign or otherwise inject themselves into this realm of the private
lives of *WE THE PEOPLE*.

Without a court to sentence people, the other two branches of government
can’t enforce or maintain the law constitutionally. Basically it will
be useless and be trash-canned (tossed in the rubbish bin).

For the Judges to ignore the constitution, will only increase the calls
for a revolution. If they can’t follow their oath of office then they
too will be removed by WE THE PEOPLE at some point. Hopefully before
they get the same treatment that Mussolini got.

When WE THE PEOPLE are backed into a corner… from what I have seen,
things can get pretty nasty.

More Lies About Gas Prices In Canada And Its Superior Economy

admin — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:55:52 +0000

On 3/29/2012 10:42 PM, Alan Brown wrote:
> As we all know, the USA is a socialist s&*$?%t hole because of Obama and he’s
> allowing gas prices to grow too high for rugged, independent Republican
> capitalists to handle. The economy will surely be in the s&*$?%r compared to
> Canada‘s in no time.
>
> In Canada, the average price of gas stood at $1.30 per litre.
>
> That’s in US gallons, in $US dollars, $4.92!
>
> Canada is destroyed! They have all the oil! They have Obamacare! They have
> Gay Marriage! They have a capitalist Conservative government!
>
>
> How can their economy be so good compared to the USA’s?

Europe pays $10.00 a gal. and look how good they have it.

I mean besides the street riots and no jobs and bankruptcy and…

You only pay about $1.00 more than the U.S. Average at the moment. And
yes your GDP is NOTHING to crow about either, considering you have all
that oil and Natural resources/energy that you can actually drill dig
mine and use. We have Alaska that our Feds won’t let us leave a boot
print on and the Gulf that can’t be anything but pristine.

Our EPA and other regulations are killing our economy and that means
$1.00 more in gas prices is very hard on this economy.

All I did by “giving” you that $10.00 was to make you my bitch. Did the government make you their bitch?

admin — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:04:47 +0000

On 3/29/2012 10:17 AM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:57:30 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/29/2012 9:10 AM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:31:31 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/28/2012 10:36 PM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:50:50 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/28/2012 8:38 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>> Sid9 wrote:
>>>>>>>> “Bill Graham” wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:jeqdnZhSXIPYCO7SnZ2dnUVZ5uidnZ2d @&*$?%giganews.com…
>>>>>>>>> Sid9 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> “Bill Graham” wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:I8SdnUUtdZki0uzSnZ2dnUVZ5vKdnZ2d @&*$?%giganews.com…
>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> “Bill Graham” wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:C9ednYq_ppXGM-3SnZ2dnUVZ5uudnZ2d @&*$?%giganews.com…
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, sages aren’t governors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this isn’t 17th century England.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point was that you have to define what you mean by government
>>>>>>>>>>>>> before your statements about it have any meaning……
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We already did that – over 200 years ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s called the “Establishment Clause” of the constitution.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It defines not just what our government is, but why it is as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It was put in there specifically for y’all Libertarian types -
>>>>>>>>>>>> because they knew folks like you would come along and not try to
>>>>>>>>>>>> give it your own *special* meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Come along? – Give me a break! Thom Jefferson and most of the rest
>>>>>>>>>>> of the founding fathers were all libertarians. It was everything
>>>>>>>>>>> else that, “Came along”.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not true.
>>>>>>>>>> They were the merchant class who wanted to make their own rules.
>>>>>>>>>> They didn’t want some king thousands of miles away making the rules.
>>>>>>>>>> That’s why we have a constitution and a body of laws.
>>>>>>>>>> Libertarians would have it otherwise
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This libertarian doesn’t want it otherwise… I worship the
>>>>>>>>> constitution. It is the only thing that protects me from other
>>>>>>>>> people voting to steal all my mone3y from me. But Obama wants all my
>>>>>>>>> money, and he’s going to get it by exactly that… Getting rid of
>>>>>>>>> the constitution and the individual protections it offers to the
>>>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obama wants all your money?
>>>>>>>> He cut taxes.
>>>>>>>> How do you come to your conclusion?
>>>>>>>> Your paragraph above is total nonsense
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He cut taxes and spent trillions of dollars by borrowing money to be
>>>>>>> paid back by my children and grandchildren.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Liberals???? Obama shifted taxes from today, until 2014 and beyond….
>>>>>> he didn’t cut anything all Obama has done is spend spend spend and we
>>>>>> have to pay pay pay….
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obama and Democrats are such liars and scam artists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Get a Liberal to tell you WHO will pay for all these trillions hat Obama
>>>>>> has spent? Good luck, they’ll lie and evade the answer and do almost
>>>>>> anything rather tan tell you that you will have to pay it in a few years
>>>>>> when the economy is sliding towards the abyss that Obama has been
>>>>>> creating for us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obama didn’t create it you stupid moron. The economy did, which
>>>>> started to crash long before Obama took office.
>>>>
>>>> That is NOT a denial that Obama spent it, you’re only trying to shift
>>>> blame…. and it’s not working. Taxes can’t go down if Obama is
>>>> spending us into larger deficits, we the people will “eventually” be
>>>> forced to pay those debts with taxes. So they aren’t immediate taxes
>>>> yet they are taxes none the less. Remember that Obama asked for this JOB
>>>> and proclaimed that he could fix it all.
>>>
>>> What you suggest he cuts?
>>
>> Everything!
>
> Everything except the benefits you enjoy, of course. Your kind
> always wants to cut benefits to everyone else but you.
>
>>
>>> You forget the budget is the responsiblity
>>> of Congress, right?
>>
>> It seems to be a joint responsibility. The president makes the
>> recommendation, but ["All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in
>> the House of Representatives"] So we say that congress holds the purse
>> strings.
>
> DUH!
>
>>
>>> And the Republicans have vowed to block
>>> everything in order to try to make Obama look bad.
>>
>> Actually that would make Obama look good, spending is what is bad.
>
> Um, do you know who the biggest employer is in the country? What do
> you think will happen to the economy if you suddenly have deep across
> the board cuts to all government programs? Where do you think all
> that money goes? It goes to jobs.

What jobs? Explain how the government is part of the economy…

Are you saying that you hand your wife $10.00 and that means your family
is $10.00 wealthier, then when she hands it back to you, the family is
NOW $20.00 wealthier?

The government took that money from “us”, and you think that by giving
it back to “us” that somehow we are wealthier and the GDP is better for
it having gone in a circle?

Monetary velocity does NOT create wealth. You seem to be confused like
most Socialists dunces.

> It pays salaries and buys
> materials so things can get done.

Can you explain that further, because when I give you $10.00 it has
created no wealth, you did no work. That economy is not growing or
sustainable. All I did by “giving” you that $10.00 was to make you my
b&*$?%h. Did the government make you their b&*$?%h? Will you keep
coming back with your hand out?

> How many jobs will be lost when you
> get all your budget cuts (you won’t)

None… if they are really needed their job will stay, if they are
excess baggage they will be cut and that money can then go to real jobs
that are actually creating wealth and that will eventually create enough
wealth to get us out of this phony government created virtual economy
that pays people to do useless do nothing government funded jobs that
have no real value. At least FDR had bridges roads and Dams to show for
what silly government waste he did. Socialist Obama has NOTHING.

> You are a brainwashed idiot. This crisis is a crisis of unfettered
> capitalism.

Here is your problem, you seek mediocrity…. you will always be someone
else’s b&*$?%h. Socialism == Mediocrity

You want a government do nothing job that pays you to waste your life…
well the world needs clean public toilets I guess… keep up the fine
job and in 20 years you can let the politicians steal that retirement
from you and you can figure out like all the Socialists do, that
Socialism always fails when it runs out of other peoples money.

If you hate CAPITALISM, why have you not already moved to GREECE where
Socialism is a raving success?

Maybe they need a spreadsheet of lies so they can track their last lies and try harder NOT to contradict their past lies with the NEW lies.

admin — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:40:35 +0000

On 3/19/2012 11:13 AM, Eddie Haskell wrote:
> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
> message news:4F674AA8.1050703 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>> On 3/19/2012 10:41 AM, Eddie Haskell wrote:
>>> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
>>> message news:4F663394.6050909 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do Liberal-Socialists tell us that Health care costs 15% of the GDP,
>>>> they get all excited about it and call is wasted money….
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then those very same Liberal-Socialists will tell us that government
>>>> spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?
>>>
>>> Humm.. Because they can’t keep their lies straight?
>>>
>>> -Eddie Haskell
>>
>> That’s all I could come up with…. It’s typical Liberal duplicitous
>> lies.
>
> I think it may be kinda like when gas was high under Bush it was because
> Bush and Cheney were “big oil men,” but now that it’s high under Hussein
> “there is no silver bullet” and the president has little control over the
> price of gas.
>
> -Eddie Haskell

They do seem to make it up as they go along, the problem there is that
they don’t keep the lies all in row and the lies start conflicting with
one another.

Maybe they need a spreadsheet of lies so they can track their last lies
and try harder NOT to contradict their past lies with the NEW lies.

Sort of a *LIARS FLOW CHART*

NOT only are Liberal-Socialists stupid but they’re also unorganized.
You’d think that given the TRILLIONS of dollars they stole from
taxpayers they could organize their s&*$?%y philosophy better then
this…. they’re probably all on drugs.

government spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?

admin — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:03:04 +0000

On 3/19/2012 10:41 AM, Eddie Haskell wrote:
> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
> message news:4F663394.6050909 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>
>>
>>
>> Why do Liberal-Socialists tell us that Health care costs 15% of the GDP,
>> they get all excited about it and call is wasted money….
>>
>>
>> Then those very same Liberal-Socialists will tell us that government
>> spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?
>
> Humm.. Because they can’t keep their lies straight?
>
> -Eddie Haskell

That’s all I could come up with…. It’s typical Liberal duplicitous
lies.

government spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?

admin — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:26:38 +0000

On 3/18/2012 5:03 PM, T&*$?%y wrote:
> On Mar 18, 12:12 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> –
>> *WHO IS JOHN GALT*
>
> a character in a fiction novel that fools decided to worship.

*WHO IS AHAB*

And if it’s a fictional character in a fiction novel, why is it a
classic that is studied and dissected and worshiped as great literature?

“Fiction” doesn’t mean you can’t learn something from it….

Maybe you just haven’t grasped the true meaning of Atlas Shrugged.

Try something with a simple meaning first, read Hemingway’s “The Old Man
and the Sea” Maybe you can start out simple and work your way up to

*WHO IS JOHN GALT*

government spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?

admin — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:09:50 +0000

Why do Liberal-Socialists tell us that Health care costs 15% of the GDP,
they get all excited about it and call it wasted money…. Something
they and the government need to remedy.

Then those very same Liberal-Socialists will tell us that government
spending 23% of the GDP on welfare public buildings and useless
employees is NOTHING to be concerned with?

It seems silly to say that government wasted money is less of a problem
than health Industry wasted money in the Private sector, and yet the
Liberal-Socialist types have been convinced that government waste is
good and personal health waste is bad… it’s all coming from the same
place(our pockets). The place it comes from is the GDP which is a
function of the work that is done in the PRIVATE SECTOR by us.

government spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?

admin — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 19:12:20 +0000

Why do Liberal-Socialists tell us that Health care costs 15% of the GDP,
they get all excited about it and call is wasted money….

Then those very same Liberal-Socialists will tell us that government
spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?

You can screw the vultures that want to pick your bones clean….

admin — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 02:21:34 +0000

On 3/10/2012 2:52 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
> On Mar 10, 11:36 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 3/10/2012 2:12 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 10, 7:17 am, jim < "sjedgingN0Sp"@m @&*$?%mwt,net> wrote:
>>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>>>>> You picked the date. Four years ago was March 2008.
>>
>>>>> Funny thing is that it makes no difference that you’re an a&*$?%e, GOLD
>>>>> was still the better way to buy the gas. The original intent is still
>>>>> valid and you distracting from that with dates and Liberal whining was
>>>>> superfluous.
>>
>>>> Gold is just another commodity that is inflated in price.
>>>> The inflation is because of too many dollars borrowed
>>>> into existence by the private sector. The high price
>>>> of gold is a reflection of that surplus of dollars
>>>> in the system.
>>
>>> I’m not so sure. It seems more like a bubble to me.
>>> Speculators speculate based upon their perception
>>> of the future rather than the reality. Money is in the
>>> wrong hands so our economy is only slowly recovering.
>>> It’s still money starved where it counts and flush where
>>> it isn’t needed.
>>
>>>> from 1998 to 2008 the private sector borrowed the
>>>> equivalent of 25% of US GDP for those 10 years. That
>>>> was $100 trillion in GDP ad $25 trillion borrowed in that decade.
>>
>>>> But the
>>>> private sector is no longer borrowing like crazy.
>>>> When the day comes that people need to exchange
>>>> their gold for cash so that they can buy gas (and
>>>> other necessities) the price of gold will plummet
>>>> as that will be the day when there is a shortage of
>>>> cash and few will want to exchange their cash for gold.
>>
>>> Yes, a bubble.
>>
>>>> And with private
>>>> sector credit money no longer expanding the money supply
>>>> that day is coming.
>>
>>> Bubbles burst.
>>
>> You can’t print more gold, so where does the bubble come from?
>
> People buying more gold than is rational at its market price.

By definition it is always at its market price. And any that you buy is
is more than is rational since you don’t need it for anything… you
can’t eat it or pour it in your gas tank.

It is rare and precious and its uses are rare.

> I only have about 10oz but I bought that years ago.

20 grand and you paid maybe 2 to 4 grand… NOT bad.

> I’ve thought
> about selling and buying back later. I’m a hoarder by nature so
> it’s hard for me to trade. Even if it lost half it’s price I’d still
> be
> in the black. That’s hardly an excuse to not make a profit.
> I’m not driven by profit even though I look to make some.

If you transferred that wealth to land while land/houses is in a slump
and gold is high, you still have a tangible asset and you keep rolling
over your profits for more wealth.

It is how you use that “bubble” to your advantage, yet it really isn’t a
bubble. The big problem is that the gold isn’t taxed, but the land
would be taxed so plan for the taxes or buy where they don’t tax your
property like maybe Alaska?

This is why low tax States and countries tend to have economies that you
can survive in.

The nice thing is that with GOLD, you can put it in your pocket and sail
to a blue hole in the Caribbean, and toss it over and screw the
government that feels they have the POWER to steal your belongings when
you die.

You can screw the vultures that want to pick your bones clean…. The
best thing is knowing that while you can’t do as you please, the
government thieves and parasites won’t live off you.

The bankruptcy courts will decide which path to follow in the near future….

admin — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:54:08 +0000

On 1/27/2012 3:40 AM, @&*$?%comcast.net">retrogrouch @&*$?%comcast.net wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:59:06 -0700, lsrlts wrote:
>
>>> Selling off public assets is the sure way to ruin.
>>> It’s the Republican way
>>
>>
>> Taxing us into unpayable debt is the Dem way.
>
>
> As opposed to spending our way into debt the GOP way:
> http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
>
> Chuckle (he’s always telling us we’re so partisan. Every so often he
> shows his real colors.)

The bankruptcy courts will decide which path to follow in the near
future….

If you work for a living you pay the highest taxes! Romney Says His Effective Tax Rate Is ‘Probably’ 15%

admin — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:22:59 +0000

On 1/18/2012 10:20 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “Gary Forbis” wrote in message
> news:e814abf1-6488-40c3-9dd4-47e5b958c2a7 @&*$?%gg10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com…
>> I think we have to disagree again about that CBO report.
>> We’ve covered this area before. While CBO is supposed to be
>> party independent it isn’t always.
>>
>> On Jan 18, 5:11 am, jane wrote:
>>> On Jan 18, 2:04 am, Gary Forbis wrote:
>>
>>> For
>>> example, they use the SS insurance program to try and stimulate the
>>> economy by lowering the insurance premiums at a time when the SS
>>> program is running a deficit.
>>
>> It’s still not running a deficit. It is using some of its interest
>> payment.
>> The fund is still growing year over year.
>
> I need to pause and shed a tear for our tax system that has impoverished
> the wealthy among us.
> What bullshit!

Worse is the tax system hurts the poor by killing job creation.

The system is built to keep the Private sector working and growing but
Obama’s Socialism and BIG GOVERNMENT supported by high taxes is causing
the opposite to happen.

Every dollar printed or borrowed is a tax, because someone has to pay
it. If NOT you today, your child tomorrow. But it will be paid by the
GDP and the Private sector that pays all bills for all the Government
spending. And when you have government using the GDP, the Private
sector has less to use to grow and expand.

The scales are no longer balanced. Government is too heavy and the
Private sector can’t continue to hold up the weight of the Government
Socialism. The Private sector is/has been shrinking.

US GDP Revised Down 50 % last Quarter

admin — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:12:44 +0000

On 11/30/2011 11:32 AM, ØBAMAGGOT OCCUTARDS wrote:
> Funny how every time Obama releases this data, its always faked
> higher then reality, then revised down quietly later when Obama thinks
> no one is looking.
>
>
> Productivity Weaker Than Thought, Wages Slip
> Published: Wednesday, 30 Nov 2011 | 8:38 AM ET Text Size By: Reuters
>
> The rebound in U.S. nonfarm productivity growth was not as strong as
> previously estimated in the third quarter, while wages declined for two
> straight quarters, supporting the Federal Reserve’s views of moderate
> inflation pressures.
>
> Productivity increased at a 2.3 percent annual rate, the Labor
> Department said on Wednesday, a downward revision to its previous
> estimate of 3.1 percent.
>
> http://www.cnbc.com/id/45490805

The Obamanistas are all LIARS, you’re making a mistake if you believe
the first number is the only lie.

They lie about the adjustment too….

*EVERYTHING FROM AND CONNECTED TO OBAMA IS A LIE*

Taxing the 1%

admin — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 18:46:59 +0000

On 11/27/2011 10:44 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
> On Nov 26, 1:47 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 11/26/2011 12:52 PM, Repubs Lost Unpaid Wars wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 15, 11:09 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/2011 10:50 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 11, 1:44 pm, Immortalist wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 10, 8:08 pm, D&*$?%n wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Thing is the 99% Occupy movement is global. So, if we decide to tax
>>>>>>> the rich, where are they gonna go with the money?
>>
>>>>>> A return to Eisenhower-era 90% top tax rates helps fix our economy in
>>>>>> several ways:
>>
>>>> It destroys the private sector economy….
>>
>>> It didn’t during the Eisenhower-era.
>>
>> Yet they saw the need to lower it to keep the growth happening.
>
> Why should we believe you now? You just said a 90% tax on the rich
> would destroy private industry and it didn’t.

The point was that it will destroy the private sectors GDP….. I used
a company and industry as a micro economic example, then extrapolate
that into Macro economic National scale.

The GDP will get smaller.

And the 94-70% tax was lowered for a reason, and the GDP under that tax
was ~6% while before that high tax rate the GDP was ~16%, and that is
why 70-90% tax will destroy the GDP.

Remember that you have averaged 18% of GDP as a tax base. When you
destroy the economy and the GDP you get less money into that Federal
Treasury.

18% of $14trillion GDP, is more than 18% of a $10trillion GDP.

Since you average 18% of GDP income to the Treasury, your best way to
get more funds into the Treasury is to make the GDP grow, and that way
18% of a bigger pie is more taxes that end up in the Treasury.

Raising taxes high gives a short tax income blip and then a shrinking
GDP…. Lowering taxes gives an expanding GDP.

Taxing the 1%

admin — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:47:21 +0000

On 11/26/2011 12:52 PM, Repubs Lost Unpaid Wars wrote:
> On Nov 15, 11:09 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 10:50 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 11, 1:44 pm, Immortalist wrote:
>>>> On Nov 10, 8:08 pm, D&*$?%n wrote:
>>
>>>>> Thing is the 99% Occupy movement is global. So, if we decide to tax
>>>>> the rich, where are they gonna go with the money?
>>
>>>> A return to Eisenhower-era 90% top tax rates helps fix our economy in
>>>> several ways:
>>
>> It destroys the private sector economy….
>
> It didn’t during the Eisenhower-era.

Yet they saw the need to lower it to keep the growth happening.

That 70% tax was stifling things and it took a lot of damage to stifle
the post war economy but the 70% tax rate was doing it.

GDP went from 16% when taxes were below the 70% to 6% when taxes were
raised to above 70%.

Personally I say raise it to 70% and with an absolute sunset for 12 or
24 months with zero ability for renewal for it…… and see the
economy fall in the toilet and into Deeper Depression for two to five
years, and then we can be done with Obama and all this Liberal-Socialist
tax policy and socialism for a while.

All the capital will run away and hide and there will be zero new
businesses and zero people wanting to come to America to get rich and we
will see the GDP plummet. You will be forced to lower the tax rate to
get the GDP growth above ZERO. Crime will rise as people go outside the
economy to the underground economy to make a living….

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 94%.

admin — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:08:49 +0000

On 11/23/2011 11:38 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
> message news:4ECD1FEF.7080203 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>> On 11/22/2011 9:34 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:59:48 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even that idea has no merit. Since corporations can be profitable when
>>>> they fire thousands of people.
>>>
>>> Exactly
>>>
>>> SO—Scottloon
>>>
>>> Taxation doesn’t harm corporations–it just revises their profit line
>>>
>>> And using the tax code to “urge” corporations into behavior more
>>> reasonable for the welfare of the nation that protects it—-should be
>>> a desired thing to do.
>>>
>>
>> Taxes are part of the cost of the product that consumers buy, of course
>> taxes effect corporations, but taxes effect the people, by raising their
>> cost of living since they pay the tax when they buy the product.
>>
>>
>> There is NO power in the constitution that allows congress to use taxes
>> or taxation/tax code/laws to manipulate corporations or citizens
>> behavior.
>>
>>
>> I was pointing out that they can fire people to limit their expenses….
>> and by doing that and selling assets and collecting their capital
>> gains, they can report a profit and pay taxes and dividends.
>>
>>
>> The point being that GDP falls less but the economy is shrinking despite
>> skewed numbers.
>>
>> *Raising taxes doesn’t make the economy grow or get anyone hired*
>>
>>
>> –
>>
>
> You need to be more specific.
> Corporate income tax is NOT part of the cost of the product.

Tell me… from whom, the money comes from to pay that tax. The money
is embedded in the cost of the production. If they sell no products
they pay no tax, if they sell those items they pay a tax.

> Corporate income tax does not raise the price of a product.

I earn enough to buy cable TV that costs ~$100, I had to earn $130
because there is a ~30% Federal income tax…. I buy the cable and
there are 9 taxes on the cable bill that cost a total of ~$10.00 which
cost me an additional $3.00 in income tax to earn

It ends up that I had to earn $143.00 to buy my $100 product thanks to
all my taxes and still in the cost of that $100 is the 35% tax that the
Federal corporate income tax will be….

Given that they make a reasonable 8% profit….. that would mean that
$8.00 of that $100 they charged me is going to the Federal corporate
income tax.

So I earned $143 to buy $92.00 worth of cable from which government has
made ~$51.00

That means government cost me $51.00 for the privilege of buying $92.00
worth of product. That is a tax real rate of about 50% and that is reality.

> Try a college level course in the Economics department called “Price
> Theory”

Try reality, I already had micro/macro economics at a State university.

If the cost of cable rises any more, the reason being tax or labor or
even electricity, it is irrelevant why but the cost will make the
service/product too expensive for the return value and I might NOT
choose to spend my discretionary income for that. I can just use the 4G
WiFi of the cell phone service that I already have that is only $45.

Then the economy and the CATV market will take a hit as more people do
the same thing.

An example is NetFlix and when they raised the price of their product
because the owner said he felt like it. He wanted to raise the price
and didn’t understand the numbers, NetFlix lost a lot of customers and
the company stock value is down 25% in one quarter.

http://www.thirdage.com/news/nflx-netflix-stocks-loses-quarter-of-its-value_09-20-2011

Down today by about 70%

http://ir.netflix.com/stockquote.cfm

That should tell you that raising taxes and making regulations can also
destroy a market. Which is why we are where we are…. Government
regulations and taxes are the reason people and economy are down where
they are. Micro/Macro

The government is a parasite that is consuming it’s host.

admin — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:25:40 +0000

On 11/24/2011 11:15 AM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 10:53:30 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/24/2011 2:54 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/23/2011 11:58 PM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>>>> Hmmmm … if corporate profits are up, isn’t that
>>>>> bounty supposed to ‘trickle down’ according to
>>>>> the Reaganomic model ???
>>>>>
>>>>> Something’s trickling down, but it ain’t money …
>>>>>
>>>>> Yea, yea, I know it’s not as simple as that, but
>>>>> this IS an election year and we’re not suppose to
>>>>> think very deeply about issues
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NO… the reason the profits are up is that they fired millions and then
>>>> give no raises to millions more….. Unless you work in Government
>>>> jobs like Fannie Mae
>>>
>>> Of course, they dumped the ‘dead weight’ … people
>>> who weren’t necessary/contributing to the bottom line
>>> as it exists at the moment.
>>>
>>> But we’re not supposed to think about that. Slogans
>>> and sound-bites …….
>>>
>>
>> *Exactly*
>>
>>>> Private Sector business is down, while profits are up? Doesn’t that
>>>> scream “something is very wrong”
>>>
>>> Not as many customers. Dump the dead weight. Fly high.
>>>
>>> Simple really.
>>
>> You got it!
>>
>>>
>>>> The corporations are cannibalizing themselves.
>>>
>>> Oh, they’ve got everyone on the hook. If they wanna
>>> hire tomorrow they’ll have no end of prospects.
>>
>> Things go awry here….
>>
>> and that’s true that they can grow later, except that they’re selling
>> their assets.
>>
>> Things will look different, when they start to hire.
>> I just got a letter that one of my investments was bought by a Japanese
>> firm.
>>
>> That is the selling of assets that I speak of.
>>
>> The old owner will be flush with cash for a short time from the sale.
>> In the end the original American owner will have fewer employees and
>> fewer assets. The American companies economy is shrinking and so is all
>> of America’s economy. The problem is you aren’t seeing those numbers.
>>
>>
>>>> They are also going bankrupt when they haven’t enough assets to
>>>> liquidate to continue their phony profits scams.
>>>
>>> Yea … well scams ARE a reality here. Lots of companies
>>> are horribly over-leveraged … put all their money into
>>> investments that ain’t gonna pay off.
>>
>> But they are getting bailed out by tax payers like Fannie and
>> Freddie…. and because of the Socialist policy, economic growth has
>> been killed for the past 3 years and will be for another 7 and maybe
>> 10-20 years.
>>
>> Government is working against the private sector. The government is a
>> parasite that is consuming it’s host.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> But so long as they can fool the investors, put a happy
>>> face on things, they’ll stay in business.
>>>
>>
>> That happy face skews the income tax and GDP data, it looks better than
>> it is, until the wire snaps and then at that point it will be an Apocalypse.
>>
>>
>> We are set up so it’s made easy to fail and very hard to succeed. We
>> have yet to see the BIG crash in this Depression.
>
> Get ready for it. Any day now. The European house of cards is about
> to come down and take us along with it. People ain’t seen nothing
> yet. This is bought, paid for, and intentionally engineered fiscal
> crisis. The wealthy paid for it and they’re damn well going to get
> it. The best way to rid themselves of that pesky thing known as the
> middle class.

That’s the Political class that wants to crash the economy, it will give
them more power. The politicians will profit from a collapse in the
private sector.

And it looks like a particular group are setting themselves up to gain
the most, it’s the Socialists that will call capitalism the problem and
the Socialist political class will get the most power from the economic
failure.

But we’ve been down the road to Socialism and it’s littered with
millions of political murders. For all the evils that may be
capitalism, it still makes Socialism look like the Devil on steroids.

The government is a parasite that is consuming it’s host.

admin — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:53:30 +0000

On 11/24/2011 2:54 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>> On 11/23/2011 11:58 PM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>> Hmmmm … if corporate profits are up, isn’t that
>>> bounty supposed to ‘trickle down’ according to
>>> the Reaganomic model ???
>>>
>>> Something’s trickling down, but it ain’t money …
>>>
>>> Yea, yea, I know it’s not as simple as that, but
>>> this IS an election year and we’re not suppose to
>>> think very deeply about issues
>>>
>>
>> NO… the reason the profits are up is that they fired millions and then
>> give no raises to millions more….. Unless you work in Government
>> jobs like Fannie Mae
>
> Of course, they dumped the ‘dead weight’ … people
> who weren’t necessary/contributing to the bottom line
> as it exists at the moment.
>
> But we’re not supposed to think about that. Slogans
> and sound-bites …….
>

*Exactly*

>> Private Sector business is down, while profits are up? Doesn’t that
>> scream “something is very wrong”
>
> Not as many customers. Dump the dead weight. Fly high.
>
> Simple really.

You got it!

>
>> The corporations are cannibalizing themselves.
>
> Oh, they’ve got everyone on the hook. If they wanna
> hire tomorrow they’ll have no end of prospects.

Things go awry here….

and that’s true that they can grow later, except that they’re selling
their assets.

Things will look different, when they start to hire.
I just got a letter that one of my investments was bought by a Japanese
firm.

That is the selling of assets that I speak of.

The old owner will be flush with cash for a short time from the sale.
In the end the original American owner will have fewer employees and
fewer assets. The American companies economy is shrinking and so is all
of America’s economy. The problem is you aren’t seeing those numbers.

>> They are also going bankrupt when they haven’t enough assets to
>> liquidate to continue their phony profits scams.
>
> Yea … well scams ARE a reality here. Lots of companies
> are horribly over-leveraged … put all their money into
> investments that ain’t gonna pay off.

But they are getting bailed out by tax payers like Fannie and
Freddie…. and because of the Socialist policy, economic growth has
been killed for the past 3 years and will be for another 7 and maybe
10-20 years.

Government is working against the private sector. The government is a
parasite that is consuming it’s host.

>
> But so long as they can fool the investors, put a happy
> face on things, they’ll stay in business.
>

That happy face skews the income tax and GDP data, it looks better than
it is, until the wire snaps and then at that point it will be an Apocalypse.

We are set up so it’s made easy to fail and very hard to succeed. We
have yet to see the BIG crash in this Depression.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 94%.

admin — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 04:18:43 +0000

> Corporate income tax does not raise the price of a product.

It ends up that I had to earn $140.00 to buy my $100 product thanks to
all my taxes and still in the cost of that $100 is the 35% tax that the
Federal corporate income tax will be….

Given that they make a reasonable 8% profit….. that would mean that
$8.00 of that $100 they charged me is going to the Federal corporate
income tax.

So I earned $140 to buy $92.00 worth of cable from which government made
has ~$48.00

That means government cost me $48.00 for the privilege of buying $92.00
worth of product. That is a tax rate of about 50% and that is reality.

> Try a college level course in the Economics department called “Price
> Theory”

Try reality, I already had micro/macro economics at a State university.

Then the economy and the CATV market will take a hit as more people do
the same thing.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 94%.

admin — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:31:43 +0000

On 11/22/2011 9:34 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:59:48 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> Even that idea has no merit. Since corporations can be profitable when
>> they fire thousands of people.
>
> Exactly
>
> SO—Scottloon
>
> Taxation doesn’t harm corporations–it just revises their profit line
>
> And using the tax code to “urge” corporations into behavior more
> reasonable for the welfare of the nation that protects it—-should be
> a desired thing to do.
>

Taxes are part of the cost of the product that consumers buy, of course
taxes effect corporations, but taxes effect the people, by raising their
cost of living since they pay the tax when they buy the product.

There is NO power in the constitution that allows congress to use taxes
or taxation/tax code/laws to manipulate corporations or citizens behavior.

I was pointing out that they can fire people to limit their expenses….
and by doing that and selling assets and collecting their capital
gains, they can report a profit and pay taxes and dividends.

The point being that GDP falls less but the economy is shrinking despite
skewed numbers.

*Raising taxes doesn’t make the economy grow or get anyone hired*

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 94%.

admin — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:54:55 +0000

On 11/22/2011 2:34 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
> message news:4ECBF124.1050201 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>> On 11/21/2011 9:26 PM, Milt wrote:
>>> On Nov 21, 5:52 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2011 5:00 PM, Milt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 21, 10:54 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, d…@dudu.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “C…@PrayForMe.com”
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>>>>
>>>>>>> It’s not the “gubment” that going to have to do without,
>>>>>>> dumbass. So
>>>>>>> who’s benefits get cut? Oh I know, everybody’s but yours.
>>>>
>>>>>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.
>>>>
>>>>>> Income Tax Act of 1944
>>>>>> 1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual
>>>>
>>>>>> to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.
>>>>
>>>>>> The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.
>>>>
>>>>>> Can you tell us why it failed?
>>>>
>>>>>> –
>>>>
>>>>> Poverty was much lower when tax rates were 70% and above than it is
>>>>> now.
>>>>
>>>> So you’re saying that we spend more now and poverty is worse, isn’t
>>>> that
>>>> a catch-22 when you admit that things were better then and worse now?
>>>
>>> Poverty was getting better before we hit neocon-land.
>>>>
>>>> It would seem to indicate that spending less was better.
>>>
>>> We spend less and there’s more poverty.
>>>>
>>>> Spending less must be better than spending more(you just said so)….
>>>>
>>>> Oh wait the Treasury still took in about 18% of GDP so raising taxes
>>>> had
>>>> almost zero effect on Federal funds to taken in to spend back in 1944
>>>>
>>>> so you need to tax more and/or spend less, start by spending less and
>>>> see if that is sufficient and if NOT then we would be forced to look at
>>>> something else.
>>>>
>>>> –
>>>
>>> Forget that you just pulled the number out of your a&*$?%s. Percent of GDP
>>> has nothing to do with this issue. When poverty is high, revenues as
>>> percent of GDP will always be higher, because there are fewer
>>> taxpayers, and thus less revenue.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That didn’t make sense, but I think I see what you were trying to say.
>>
>> did you mean when poverty is high, revenues will be low, due to
>> unemployment?
>>
>> Even that idea has no merit. Since corporations can be profitable when
>> they fire thousands of people. We just went through that, when
>> everyone trimmed the payroll in order to prepare for the Obama created
>> Depression.
>>
>> THAT SAID….
>>
>> The GDP will be an issue because it has a ceiling and that is 18%, raise
>> and lower Federal taxes all you want but you will end up with an average
>> within a few points of that 18% average.
>>
>> It’s just how history has come to pass. Given that truth, when
>> government spends more than 18% it is going to be long term deficit
>> spending.
>>
>> Raise taxes higher to get more than an average 18%… and you will be
>> suppressing economic activity and gaining no real revenue. The so
>> called boom from high 94% taxes was an average 2% and that slowed the
>> economy to the point that they were soon lowering those taxes to
>> encourage economic growth and the fall in Federal taxes continued in
>> incremental steps up and down until it was at 38%
>>
>> Look at the 1920 Depression, taxes rise to 70% then crash of the
>> economy, then the fall of the taxes. They taxed higher until it
>> crashed. Then they lowered taxes until it started to grow.
>>
>> Here at the graph below is deficit spending in RED and the actual Total
>> Federal Revenue is in BLUE.
>>
>> NOTICE THAT THE 94% tax rate in 1944 didn’t raise enough revenue to
>> cover the deficit spending and it crushes the economy/GDP. 1943 the
>> previous year to 1944 the growth of the GDP was 30-40 billion dollars
>> per year and after the 94% tax rate the GDP growth was a muted 8-10
>> billion dollars. The GDP went from a 16% growth in 1943 to 6% in 1944.
>>
>> It was a 6% growth rate after the tax rate was known to increase to a
>> top rate of 94%….. That indicates a 10% loss in growth of the GDP
>> from before 1943 to after 1944 and that correlates to the rise in the
>> federal income tax top rates.
>>
>> http://prntscr.com/46m9e
>>
>>
>>
>> As I have been saying, the high taxes will slow growth(with no
>> sustainable revenue benefit) and even today we see the threat of new
>> high taxes has muted the growth. We will NOT grow until Obama the
>> Socialist “redistribution” King (Obama) is removed from his throne.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> –
>>
>
> False.
> That’s St Reagan‘s and Grover Norquist’s bullshit all over again.

I see all your proof and I have to say your extensive facts and flawless
logic based on your proof was awesome.

You have reaffirmed my beliefs about Liberals.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 94%.

admin — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:59:48 +0000

On 11/21/2011 9:26 PM, Milt wrote:
> On Nov 21, 5:52 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 11/21/2011 5:00 PM, Milt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 21, 10:54 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, d…@dudu.org wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “C…@PrayForMe.com”
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>
>>>>>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>>
>>>>> It’s not the “gubment” that going to have to do without, dumbass. So
>>>>> who’s benefits get cut? Oh I know, everybody’s but yours.
>>
>>>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have been
>>>> wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.
>>
>>>> Income Tax Act of 1944
>>>> 1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual
>>
>>>> to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.
>>
>>>> The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.
>>
>>>> Can you tell us why it failed?
>>
>>>> –
>>
>>> Poverty was much lower when tax rates were 70% and above than it is
>>> now.
>>
>> So you’re saying that we spend more now and poverty is worse, isn’t that
>> a catch-22 when you admit that things were better then and worse now?
>
> Poverty was getting better before we hit neocon-land.
>>
>> It would seem to indicate that spending less was better.
>
> We spend less and there’s more poverty.
>>
>> Spending less must be better than spending more(you just said so)….
>>
>> Oh wait the Treasury still took in about 18% of GDP so raising taxes had
>> almost zero effect on Federal funds to taken in to spend back in 1944
>>
>> so you need to tax more and/or spend less, start by spending less and
>> see if that is sufficient and if NOT then we would be forced to look at
>> something else.
>>
>> –
>
> Forget that you just pulled the number out of your a&*$?%s. Percent of GDP
> has nothing to do with this issue. When poverty is high, revenues as
> percent of GDP will always be higher, because there are fewer
> taxpayers, and thus less revenue.

That didn’t make sense, but I think I see what you were trying to say.

did you mean when poverty is high, revenues will be low, due to
unemployment?

Even that idea has no merit. Since corporations can be profitable when
they fire thousands of people. We just went through that, when
everyone trimmed the payroll in order to prepare for the Obama created
Depression.

THAT SAID….

The GDP will be an issue because it has a ceiling and that is 18%, raise
and lower Federal taxes all you want but you will end up with an average
within a few points of that 18% average.

It’s just how history has come to pass. Given that truth, when
government spends more than 18% it is going to be long term deficit
spending.

Raise taxes higher to get more than an average 18%… and you will be
suppressing economic activity and gaining no real revenue. The so
called boom from high 94% taxes was an average 2% and that slowed the
economy to the point that they were soon lowering those taxes to
encourage economic growth and the fall in Federal taxes continued in
incremental steps up and down until it was at 38%

Look at the 1920 Depression, taxes rise to 70% then crash of the
economy, then the fall of the taxes. They taxed higher until it
crashed. Then they lowered taxes until it started to grow.

Here at the graph below is deficit spending in RED and the actual Total
Federal Revenue is in BLUE.

NOTICE THAT THE 94% tax rate in 1944 didn’t raise enough revenue to
cover the deficit spending and it crushes the economy/GDP. 1943 the
previous year to 1944 the growth of the GDP was 30-40 billion dollars
per year and after the 94% tax rate the GDP growth was a muted 8-10
billion dollars. The GDP went from a 16% growth in 1943 to 6% in 1944.

It was a 6% growth rate after the tax rate was known to increase to a
top rate of 94%….. That indicates a 10% loss in growth of the GDP
from before 1943 to after 1944 and that correlates to the rise in the
federal income tax top rates.

http://prntscr.com/46m9e

As I have been saying, the high taxes will slow growth(with no
sustainable revenue benefit) and even today we see the threat of new
high taxes has muted the growth. We will NOT grow until Obama the
Socialist “redistribution” King (Obama) is removed from his throne.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 01:08:30 +0000

On 11/21/2011 7:48 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
> message news:4ECAD644.5000103 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>> On 11/21/2011 5:00 PM, Milt wrote:
>>> On Nov 21, 10:54 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, d…@dudu.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “C…@PrayForMe.com”
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>>>
>>>>>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>>>>
>>>>> It’s not the “gubment” that going to have to do without, dumbass. So
>>>>> who’s benefits get cut? Oh I know, everybody’s but yours.
>>>>
>>>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have been
>>>> wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.
>>>>
>>>> Income Tax Act of 1944
>>>> 1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual
>>>>
>>>> to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.
>>>>
>>>> The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.
>>>>
>>>> Can you tell us why it failed?
>>>>
>>>> –
>>>
>>> Poverty was much lower when tax rates were 70% and above than it is
>>> now.
>>
>> So you’re saying that we spend more now and poverty is worse, isn’t that
>> a catch-22 when you admit that things were better then and worse now?
>>
>> It would seem to indicate that spending less was better.
>>
>>
>> Spending less must be better than spending more(you just said so)….
>>
>>
>> Oh wait the Treasury still took in about 18% of GDP so raising taxes had
>> almost zero effect on Federal funds to taken in to spend back in 1944.
>>
>> so you need to tax more and/or spend less, start by spending less and
>> see if that is sufficient and if NOT then we would be forced to look at
>> something else.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> –
>>
>
> So you’re saying?
> His words are clear and do not need interpretation from you

I’m saying he’s NOT very consistent.

So I’m not sure which story he wants to stick with…..

I’m awaiting any clarification that he cares to make.

Or NONE at all and he decides to go with me picking between his
conflicting statements.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:52:52 +0000

On 11/21/2011 5:00 PM, Milt wrote:
> On Nov 21, 10:54 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, d…@dudu.org wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “C…@PrayForMe.com”
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>
>>>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>>
>>> It’s not the “gubment” that going to have to do without, dumbass. So
>>> who’s benefits get cut? Oh I know, everybody’s but yours.
>>
>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have been
>> wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.
>>
>> Income Tax Act of 1944
>> 1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual
>>
>> to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.
>>
>> The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.
>>
>> Can you tell us why it failed?
>>
>> –
>
> Poverty was much lower when tax rates were 70% and above than it is
> now.

So you’re saying that we spend more now and poverty is worse, isn’t that
a catch-22 when you admit that things were better then and worse now?

It would seem to indicate that spending less was better.

Spending less must be better than spending more(you just said so)….

Oh wait the Treasury still took in about 18% of GDP so raising taxes had
almost zero effect on Federal funds to taken in to spend back in 1944.

so you need to tax more and/or spend less, start by spending less and
see if that is sufficient and if NOT then we would be forced to look at
something else.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:00:03 +0000

On 11/21/2011 11:40 AM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 10:54:35 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “CB@PrayForMe.com”
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>>>
>>> It’s not the “gubment” that going to have to do without, dumbass. So
>>> who’s benefits get cut? Oh I know, everybody’s but yours.
>>
>>
>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have been
>> wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.
>>
>>
>>
>> Income Tax Act of 1944
>> 1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual
>>
>> to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.
>>
>>
>> The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.
>>
>>
>> Can you tell us why it failed?
>
> http://people.stern.nyu.edu/nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM

The heart of this garbage you linked is ignoring that… it isn’t
claimed that the ratio of GDP to Treasury coffers income was going to
change.

It is a given that 18% of the GDP is the average that the treasury will
CONSUME. But 18% of a 16trillion dollar GDP is MORE than 18% of a
13trillion dollar GDP.

You really aren’t “getting it” are you?

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:37:35 +0000

On 11/21/2011 11:49 AM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:00:03 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “CB@PrayForMe.com”
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>>>
>>> It’s not the “gubment” that going to have to do without, dumbass. So
>>> who’s benefits get cut? Oh I know, everybody’s but yours.
>>
>>
>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have been
>> wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.
>>
>>
>>
>> Income Tax Act of 1944
>> 1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual
>>
>> to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.
>>
>>
>> The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.
>>
>>
>> Can you tell us why it failed?
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg
>>
>> I don’t see any correlation between high taxes and a lack of poverty, do
>> you?
>
> If cutting taxes improved the economy we would be in a boom cycle
> right now, dumbass, not a bust. You people replace knowledge with
> stupidity and expect everybody to accept your stupidity as fact. Won’t
> work moron.

So we are in a bust due to spending NOT due to low taxes. Taxes will
NOT increase the income to fill the treasury…. but spending more
than 18% of GDP will empty the Treasury.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1324
*Bottom of the page in charts*

The income to the treasury when the taxes were 94% was no boon to the
TREASURY and it does crush the economy. The way to get more taxes into
the Treasury is to keep income taxes low enough to encourage economic
growth, without growth you hit the glass ceiling of 18% Treasury
receipts and stop. Stopping growth then stops more income into the
treasury. So raising taxes will leave the treasury and economy smaller
than the original lower taxes.

Raising Taxes is not a linear function.

But Democrat-Socialists are too stupid to understand it.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/GIF/hist_receipt_source_GDP.gif

No matter what the taxes are raised to, you will only get an average of
18% of the GDP, at that point when you raise taxes more, you will
decrease the size/growth of the economy.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:33:16 +0000

So we are in a bust due to spending NOT due to low taxes. Taxes will
NOT increase the income to fill the treasury…. but spending more
than 18% of GDP will empty the Treasury.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1324
*Bottom of the page in charts*

Raising Taxes is not a linear function.

But Democrat-Socialists are too stupid to understand it.

Will more tax revenue improve quality of life for the 99%?

admin — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 17:48:03 +0000

On 11/19/2011 11:07 AM, Ray Fischer wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 11/13/2011 11:09 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> jane.playne @&*$?%gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Here are the numbers of what FDR spent on the “Great Depression” and
>>>> what Obama wasted on the current recession as a percentage of GDP:
>>>>
>>>> 1934 9.00
>>>> 1935 10.30
>>>> 1936 10.94
>>>> 1937 9.58
>>>> 1938 9.81
>>>> 1939 10.04
>>>> 1940 9.92
>>>> 1941 11.18
>>>>
>>>> 2009 25.10
>>>> 2010 23.75
>>>> 2011 23.88
>>>>
>>>> Obama’s spending and deficit as a percentage of GDP are the highest
>>>> since the WWII era.
>>>
>>> There’s the rightard liar at work. Notice that number for 2009?
>>> That’s Bush’s last budget that went from 10/1/2008 to 9/30/2009.
>>
>> So you are saying that 9/11/2001 was something that Clinton was
>> responsible for since it was his previous security plan and budgeted
>> security that was in action?
>
> You’re blaming Clinton because Bush ignored warnings about al Qaeda?

NO… I’m using this Liberal Logic I see being used… that because
someone else like Bush was in office the year before, that all that is
wrong can be blamed on them during the first year of the new Administration.

If it works for blaming Bush then it is also good for Clinton who
budgeted for the security and set up everything leading to 9/11.

If you believe in reality then Obama created His Spending deficits from
January 20 by NOT cutting government and BUSH is stuck with 9/11 for NOT
preparing and watching Al Qaeda, who obviously had a hard on for
America. And Clinton gets his tech Bubble crash that started crashing
in 1999.

Shifting blame is a double edged sword.

Will more tax revenue improve quality of life for the 99%?

admin — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:03:54 +0000

On 11/13/2011 11:09 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
> jane.playne @&*$?%gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here are the numbers of what FDR spent on the “Great Depression” and
>> what Obama wasted on the current recession as a percentage of GDP:
>>
>> 1934 9.00
>> 1935 10.30
>> 1936 10.94
>> 1937 9.58
>> 1938 9.81
>> 1939 10.04
>> 1940 9.92
>> 1941 11.18
>>
>> 2009 25.10
>> 2010 23.75
>> 2011 23.88
>>
>> Obama’s spending and deficit as a percentage of GDP are the highest
>> since the WWII era.
>
> There’s the rightard liar at work. Notice that number for 2009?
> That’s Bush’s last budget that went from 10/1/2008 to 9/30/2009.

So you are saying that 9/11/2001 was something that Clinton was
responsible for since it was his previous security plan and budgeted
security that was in action?

> Notice the numbers that follow? Where spending goes down? That’s
> Obama.

I notice that you claim one thing when it works in your favor and
another thing when it doesn’t.

What will live, won’t be Capitalist America

admin — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 19:13:21 +0000

On 11/12/2011 2:32 PM, Sexual Harassment Panda wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/2011 1:56 PM, Sexual Harassment Panda wrote:
>>> jane.playne wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/11/2011 07:28, Sexual Harassment Panda wrote:
>>>>> jane.playne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/11/2011 03:35, Sexual Harassment Panda wrote:
>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2011 3:22 PM, Sexual Harassment Panda wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ron Peterson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 11, 7:58 am, Wayne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So.. I suppose that the “more tax revenue” will come from the 1%.
>>>>>>>>>>> Where would the 1% go to replace that lost money? Perhaps to the
>>>>>>>>>>> pockets of the 99%?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Currently, the government gets it revenue short fall from the sale of
>>>>>>>>>> bonds. So an increase in taxes for the upper 1% would reduce the
>>>>>>>>>> purchase of government bonds by that upper 1%.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The net effect of a tax increase on that 1% would be a reduction in
>>>>>>>>>> the amount of debt that needs to be repaid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Reduction of wasteful spending and putting people to work are the
>>>>>>>>>> best ways improve the quality of life for everybody.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> –
>>>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>> How will reduced spending put people to work?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *IT WOULD LEAVE MORE MONEY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Private sector invests their money to try to create more wealth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the private sector, excepting the unemployed, already has more
>>>>>>> wealth. There are trillions and trillions of dollars sitting in banks
>>>>>>> waiting to be invested. The reason that money isn’t being invested is
>>>>>>> because demand (spending) is so low. If the government spends less, then
>>>>>>> the economy will shrink, as it has in the UK, Ireland, Greece, and soon
>>>>>>> Italy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our government needs to spend MORE, not less. It needs to raise taxes on
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a percentage of GDP, Obama is spending over twice what FDR spent.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>>> FDR spent money in exchange for labor; Obama didn’t spend money, he just
>>>>>> gave money away.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obama’s economic stimulus relied too heavily on tax cuts (1/3 of total) and
>>>>> didn’t go for direct federal project. Yes I agree with that. It was also
>>>>> too small in light of the huge loss of wealth during the downturn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When FDR was finished, FDR had the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hover Dam
>>>>>> to show for his money. What does Obama have to show for his?
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m happy to say that we in California are getting our high-speed rail
>>>>> system!
>>>>>
>>>>> The FDR Feds did not finance that bridge. It was done with California
>>>>> deficit spending. Do you have information that contradicts? Let me hear
>>>>> about it! We didnt have stupid balanced budget amendments putting a
>>>>> chokehold on our state in a recession back then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wealthy portion to keep the deficit within reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Impossible. How much would you reduce the deficit?
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn;t matter. They hold way too much wealth and have shown that they hold
>>>>> too great an influence on our government and on the minds of those of your
>>>>> ilk.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What tax rate would
>>>>>> you need? At what income level would you have to start your taxation?
>>>>>
>>>>> Back to what they were under Clinton. I might be up for raising the capital
>>>>> gains rate above 20% too.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I really doubt that you have actual numbers for those questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here are the numbers of what FDR spent on the “Great Depression” and
>>>> what Obama wasted on the current recession as a percentage of GDP:
>>>>
>>>> 1934 9.00
>>>> 1935 10.30
>>>> 1936 10.94
>>>> 1937 9.58
>>>> 1938 9.81
>>>> 1939 10.04
>>>> 1940 9.92
>>>> 1941 11.18
>>>
>>> Conveniently cut off at 1941, a&*$?%e. The US us at war too, dimbulb. You’re
>>> so full of s&*$?%t it’s a wonder you can sit still long enough to post on
>>> usenet.
>>
>>
>> SO you want to get into a WORLD WAR to end your depression.
>
> We’re already at war and have been since AWOL Bush let those Al Quaida people
> blow up the twin towers.
>

Obama just gave that enemy aid and comfort and Obama had NATO give the
enemy Libya/Greece/Iraq/Italy.

We have no allies and this blood war is costing us(not paying us), as it
was intended by the terrorists and their allies the Socialists. We’re
bleeding internally as well as bleeding on the battlefield.

We are a dieing Nation, which has been the goal of the Left and the
Socialists who have been the enemy within. They don’t like that we’re a
capitalist Nation so they try every manner of destruction. Use the
courts to create chaos and unequal justice. Use the tax code to create
economic chaos. Use the army of slimy Leftist lawyers….

It seems they are now trying to use our own government to destroy this
capitalist Nation, it is a CIVIL WAR with no clear Mason Dixon lines.

There is a CANCER that has metastasized throughout the Capitalist United
States, and that Socialist Cancer is slowly consuming the Nation that
was, and is killing the host.

*What will live, won’t be Capitalist America*

Will more tax revenue improve quality of life for the 99%?

admin — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 18:15:09 +0000

On 11/12/2011 1:56 PM, Sexual Harassment Panda wrote:
> jane.playne wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/2011 07:28, Sexual Harassment Panda wrote:
>>> jane.playne wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/11/2011 03:35, Sexual Harassment Panda wrote:
>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/11/2011 3:22 PM, Sexual Harassment Panda wrote:
>>>>>>> Ron Peterson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 11, 7:58 am, Wayne wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So.. I suppose that the “more tax revenue” will come from the 1%.
>>>>>>>>> Where would the 1% go to replace that lost money? Perhaps to the
>>>>>>>>> pockets of the 99%?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Currently, the government gets it revenue short fall from the sale of
>>>>>>>> bonds. So an increase in taxes for the upper 1% would reduce the
>>>>>>>> purchase of government bonds by that upper 1%.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The net effect of a tax increase on that 1% would be a reduction in
>>>>>>>> the amount of debt that needs to be repaid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reduction of wasteful spending and putting people to work are the
>>>>>>>> best ways improve the quality of life for everybody.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> –
>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>> How will reduced spending put people to work?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *IT WOULD LEAVE MORE MONEY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Private sector invests their money to try to create more wealth.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the private sector, excepting the unemployed, already has more wealth.
>>>>> There are trillions and trillions of dollars sitting in banks waiting to be
>>>>> invested. The reason that money isn’t being invested is because demand
>>>>> (spending) is so low. If the government spends less, then the economy will
>>>>> shrink, as it has in the UK, Ireland, Greece, and soon Italy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our government needs to spend MORE, not less. It needs to raise taxes on
>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>> As a percentage of GDP, Obama is spending over twice what FDR spent.
>>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>> FDR spent money in exchange for labor; Obama didn’t spend money, he just
>>>> gave money away.
>>>
>>> Obama’s economic stimulus relied too heavily on tax cuts (1/3 of total) and
>>> didn’t go for direct federal project. Yes I agree with that. It was also too
>>> small in light of the huge loss of wealth during the downturn.
>>>>
>>>> When FDR was finished, FDR had the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hover Dam
>>>> to show for his money. What does Obama have to show for his?
>>>
>>> I’m happy to say that we in California are getting our high-speed rail
>>> system!
>>>
>>> The FDR Feds did not finance that bridge. It was done with California deficit
>>> spending. Do you have information that contradicts? Let me hear about it! We
>>> didnt have stupid balanced budget amendments putting a chokehold on our state
>>> in a recession back then.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> wealthy portion to keep the deficit within reason.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Impossible. How much would you reduce the deficit?
>>>
>>> Doesn;t matter. They hold way too much wealth and have shown that they hold
>>> too great an influence on our government and on the minds of those of your
>>> ilk.
>>>
>>>> What tax rate would
>>>> you need? At what income level would you have to start your taxation?
>>>
>>> Back to what they were under Clinton. I might be up for raising the capital
>>> gains rate above 20% too.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I really doubt that you have actual numbers for those questions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Here are the numbers of what FDR spent on the “Great Depression” and
>> what Obama wasted on the current recession as a percentage of GDP:
>>
>> 1934 9.00
>> 1935 10.30
>> 1936 10.94
>> 1937 9.58
>> 1938 9.81
>> 1939 10.04
>> 1940 9.92
>> 1941 11.18
>
> Conveniently cut off at 1941, a&*$?%e. The US us at war too, dimbulb. You’re so
> full of s&*$?%t it’s a wonder you can sit still long enough to post on usenet.

SO you want to get into a WORLD WAR to end your depression. The
numbers don’t add up.

That will only work if you’re a capitalist and selling all the war
materials to your allies.

Russia and England started buying WAR MATERIALS in 1938 and they paid
with GOLD….. That put people to work and created wealth.

>> 2009 25.10
>> 2010 23.75
>> 2011 23.88

Will more tax revenue improve quality of life for the 99%?

admin — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 17:32:32 +0000

On 11/11/2011 5:42 PM, jane.playne wrote:
> On 11/11/2011 03:35, Sexual Harassment Panda wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/11/2011 3:22 PM, Sexual Harassment Panda wrote:
>>>> Ron Peterson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 11, 7:58 am, Wayne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So.. I suppose that the “more tax revenue” will come from the 1%.
>>>>>> Where would the 1% go to replace that lost money? Perhaps to the
>>>>>> pockets of the 99%?
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, the government gets it revenue short fall from the sale of
>>>>> bonds. So an increase in taxes for the upper 1% would reduce the
>>>>> purchase of government bonds by that upper 1%.
>>>>>
>>>>> The net effect of a tax increase on that 1% would be a reduction in
>>>>> the amount of debt that needs to be repaid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reduction of wasteful spending and putting people to work are the
>>>>> best ways improve the quality of life for everybody.
>>>>>
>>>>> –
>>>>> Ron
>>>> How will reduced spending put people to work?
>>>>
>>>
>>> *IT WOULD LEAVE MORE MONEY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR*
>>>
>>>
>>> The Private sector invests their money to try to create more wealth.
>>
>> But the private sector, excepting the unemployed, already has more
>> wealth. There
>> are trillions and trillions of dollars sitting in banks waiting to be
>> invested.
>> The reason that money isn’t being invested is because demand
>> (spending) is so
>> low. If the government spends less, then the economy will shrink, as
>> it has in
>> the UK, Ireland, Greece, and soon Italy.
>>
>> Our government needs to spend MORE, not less. It needs to raise taxes
>> on the
>
> As a percentage of GDP, Obama is spending over twice what FDR spent.
>
> FDR spent money in exchange for labor; Obama didn’t spend money, he just
> gave money away.
>
> When FDR was finished, FDR had the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hover Dam
> to show for his money. What does Obama have to show for his?

*Solyndra*

*Fannie Mae*

UNION OWNED GM

BIGGER MORE COSTLY GOVERNMENT

Urban Wealth, Rural Poverty

admin — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:44:12 +0000

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 20:35:54 +0000, John Rennie
@&*$?%talktalk.net> wrote:

>On 07/11/2011 20:05, PJZ??????????? wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 2:32 pm, PJZ??????????? wrote:
>>> The Real China: Urban Wealth, Rural Poverty
>>> Contrary Indicator – 6 hours ago
>>>
>>> “…Here’s some breaking news for the China bulls: Despite the
>>> gleaming towers of Shanghai, the monumental glass-and-steel sprawl of
>>> Beijing, the massive airports and high-speed rail networks, this is a
>>> very poor country. The urban China of bourgeois living, brand names
>>> and chic restaurants is real and growing.
>>>
>>> But the denizens of modern China are only 20 years removed from the
>>> poverty of Ta Ping. And a huge chunk of the country remains trapped in
>>> it….
>>>
>>> …Half of the population lives in rural areas, but this half only
>>> accounts for about 10% of GDP…”
>>>
>>> google to read the whole thing.
>>
>
>
>And no country is more capitalist than China. Bring back
>Mao.

Give us Mao or give him death?

RIP Mao we miss you?

The glass ceiling for taxes creating more income into the treasury is apparently 18% of GDP

admin — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 22:25:20 +0000

On 11/6/2011 12:19 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
> message news:4EB49087.6020507 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>> On 11/4/2011 9:09 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 2:08 am, “ R&*$?%d” wrote:
>>>> Gary Forbis wrote
>>>>> then why would you argue differently about the
>>>>> bottom half of US tax payers paying no income tax?
>>>>
>>>> Because they pay no net federal income tax, stupid.
>>>>
>>>>> What makes them tax payers if they don’t pay the tax to which you
>>>>> refer
>>>>
>>>> Because they would pay net federal income tax if they earnt more,
>>>> stupid.
>>>
>>> And you would be a rapist if you raped someone.
>>> Unless they are paying taxes you claim to restrict yourself to they
>>> aren’t
>>> tax payers. It’s quite simple.
>>>
>>> I still remember my grandmother’s pumpkinless pumpkin pie.
>>
>>
>> Exxon paid about 40 billion $40,000,000,000.00
>>
>
> Which they happily booked as an expense and then passed on to their
> customers
> And ultimately is was paid for by the consumers of their products
> IN effect it was indirect taxation of the civilians

I agree, all taxes are paid by the people that do the work that creates
wealth, the middle man and government workers/parasites that simply
charge more and live-off others and does NO real work that creates
wealth has not done anything, and is unable to pay tax because they are
a beneficiary of the tax.

>>
>> Just a year or two back before Obama said this was NOT the time for
>> profits.
>>
>> When did you EVER pay 1% of that as a tax?
>>
>
> Shows how stupid Obama and his followers are.
> They want to change corporations into non-profit NGOS.

Obama and his Socialists are economic idiots. I’ve been saying it for
3 years.

At no time have income taxes created an income into the treasury of more
than 18% of GDP…… The glass ceiling for taxes creating more income
into the treasury is apparently 18% of GDP, that means that we need to
grow the GDP if we want more money to pay for government spending.

The other option is to limit Government spending to 18% of GDP. Then
the Socialists can use the TAX CODE to penalize hard work like they want.

They need to decide whether they want to use TAXES as a stick to punish
us or do they want it to create income into the Treasury, apparently it
won’t do both at the same time.

Capitalism is finally collapsing but there’s hope

admin — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:41:13 +0000

On 11/4/2011 11:45 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2:34 pm, Old Baye wrote:
>> On 11/2/2011 6:25 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 2, 12:45 pm, Old Baye wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2011 7:17 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 1, 7:44 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>>>>> the old economy(free market economics, free trade, globalism)is
>>>>>> collapsing.
>>
>>>>> Yes, it is.
>>
>>>> No, it is NOT.
>>
>>> Yes, you are broke.
>>
>> No, I am not.
>>
>> Grasp reality, soon.
>
> You are not because for you USA means United Selfish of America… and
> it shows. Grasp reality about the nation. Two unpaid wars, a bubble
> that popped and no new taxes!

HIGHER Taxes have NEVER raised the income to the treasury higher than
18% of GDP……

That said, raising taxes will only raise treasury income up to 18% of
GDP which means that you have to raise the GDP (NOT TAXES) to raise
Treasury income once you hit 18% of GDP.

It’s a glass ceiling that has yet to be explained other than people
start looking for ways to hide income or simply stop earning when taxes
become too high. Which makes it impossible to pay for war by simply
raising taxes.

So if you want to pay off the war you need income to the TREASURY and
not higher taxes, they are two different items.

Dear Mr. President,

admin — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:19:47 +0000

["""[Below: See Letter from Porter Stansberry to Obama: ‘We simply can’t
afford this nonsense anymore…’

Saturday, April 23, 2011

In honor of Monday’s national Tax Day, I wrote the following letter to
Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. Please feel free to pass this around if you
like it…

Dear Mr. President,

Welcome to the ashbin of society.

With the speech you gave last week, you have firmly and permanently put
yourself in the same garbage bag as all the other communists and
socialists of the 20th century.

Your speech sounded like the faint echo of a speech Lenin gave in an icy
square in Moscow 100 years ago.

The promises you made, Mr. President, about the government giving people
things they can’t provide for themselves – a better income, reliable
health care, an advanced education, cheaper mortgages, a “shiny, happy”
life – have been made time and time again… sometimes by speakers even
better than you.

And they have always been lies.

While the government can demand obedience (and taxes), it can’t mandate
dedication, creativity, or innovation. The fact is, the government
itself is nothing more (or less) than the organized ambitions of the people.

Promising something to the people that they don’t already have is a
logical absurdity. And therein lies the timeless flaw of all
collectivist theory: Governments cannot deliver benefits to the people
that the people cannot deliver to themselves.

To demonstrate this truth, consider this example… Governments cannot
simply mandate higher tax revenue. Any substantial increase to tax rates
will reduce total collections, an economic phenomenon known as the
“Laffer Curve.”

This has been proven countless times in our country and many others. Any
sensible person will immediately understand why. Taxes are a
disincentive. The higher the marginal rate of tax, the more powerful its
impact.

That’s why, over many decades (and many different tax structures), U.S.
tax revenues have been remarkably stable at around 20% of GDP. That’s
why, as you surely know, Mr. President, changing the tax code will not
result in increased tax revenue.

Taxing only the rich simply doesn’t work. It never has. And it never
will. To increase the government’s revenues, we must first increase the
size of the economy. The government cannot tax what the economy doesn’t
produce.

In another time, most Americans might have simply ignored your speech as
the ignorant remarks of yet another handsome, Ivy League-educated,
dilettante president. But at this point in our history, my bet is people
are going to take you far more seriously than you expect. In fact, I
think you’re going to get what you deserve – the trash heap. Why will
Americans turn on you so rapidly and so completely?

Two things have changed – forever – about American politics.

The first is the media and access to critical information. It’s no
longer possible for a president’s administration to control what people
read, see, and think by simply managing the evening news broadcasts.

Thus, all your lies are now exposed almost instantly and broadcast to
millions of people via websites and services like the Drudge Report,
Twitter, and Facebook. Socialism cannot possibly survive over any long
period of time in a society with a free media – because socialism is
based on a lie. Facebook means the “half-life” of socialism is now weeks
instead of years.

Even mainstream publications like the Wall Street Journal have called
you a liar recently. They have no choice. Your lies were broadcast to
the entire world long before their op-ed pieces appeared.

Your advisors told you none of these “bloggers” mattered. All you had to
do was promise more benefits to more voters and then force fewer voters
to pay for it all. I’m sure you did the political calculus… You believed
your power to bribe and bamboozle the poor and the ignorant was stronger
than the resentment you’d engender among the “rich.” And I must admit…
since at least World War II, that’s been a safe bet in American politics.

But you forgot one critical factor: We simply can’t afford this nonsense
anymore…

Immediately after your speech, the price of silver went from $39 to a
new high above $42. Gold went up, too.

These are signs, Mr. President, that the world is losing confidence in
our currency. If our foreign creditors were to call in our debts,
America would suffer an economic cataclysm unlike anything we’ve ever
seen in our entire history.

Americans now owe a total of $56 trillion. Without the Fed’s
money-printing, it’s unlikely we could afford even the interest on these
existing debts… much less the $1.5 trillion or more in debt you continue
to rack up year after year by promising benefits we haven’t earned.

Sooner or later, our foreign creditors are going to decide our
money-printing amounts to a default, and they will stop buying our
bonds. On that day, everyone who trusts you, everyone who believes in
your lies, will be wiped out.

But that won’t be as many people as you expect.

Almost every American knows in his heart what made this country great
for the 200 years between 1776 and 1976. It wasn’t the lies of our
presidents. It wasn’t our ability to print money and rip off our Chinese
creditors. It wasn’t the modern crybaby mentality of our school system
or our unions. It wasn’t the baby boomer’s dream of a 40-year retirement
with free prescription drugs.

And it sure as hell wasn’t a suave, made-for-TV version of Karl Marx
promising everything to everyone, but with no way to pay for it.

No. What built America was her people’s unwavering faith that they were
free to enjoy the rewards of their accomplishments.

As our country tumbles into bankruptcy and crisis, the people are going
to want their prosperity back, Mr. President. And deep down, they all
know… even your most fervent supporters know… you don’t have the goods.
You don’t have the foggiest idea of how to deliver prosperity to America
because, really, you don’t understand what America is all about.

Regards,

Porter Stansberry
Stansberry’s Investment Advisory

With today’s essay, I am announcing my complete support for “the rich”
– the class of people Mr. Obama and his ilk castigate at every
opportunity. Ironically, it is these same people Obama expects to line
up like sheep waiting to be sheared. My best advice? Don’t get in that line.

Despite what Mr. Obama and his vast team of lawyer buddies, career
academics, and professional bureaucrats believe, most “rich” people in
America got that way by working hard for a long time. They got that way
by taking risks, educating themselves, starting small businesses, and
selling valuable services or products to their fellow citizens. They
didn’t inherit their wealth. They didn’t rip anyone off. They didn’t buy
political favors from people like Barack Obama.

They got that way by working hard to achieve the original American
Dream… not Obama’s new “progressive” American Dream, where everyone can
live at the expense of his neighbor. That’s why Obama’s grandstanding
must be viewed in a new way. We need to realize when Obama vilifies the
“rich,” he is vilifying the “achievers.”

And keep in mind… these achievers are already paying their share. The
top 5% of income earners in America pay nearly 60% of this country’s
income taxes.

America needs the achievers. We need investment. We need capital. We
need jobs and innovation and vast increases to productivity. The
government can supply none of these things. So to do my part, I plan to
support the achievers.

Like it or not, as deep in debt as we are, the achievers are our only
hope. That’s why I’m standing up for them. We need the achievers – and
we need more of them to want to come to America with their corporations
and their wealth. You might admire the generosity and egalitarianism of
idealized socialism in some pseudo-intellectual way… But we can’t afford
that nonsense right now. We don’t have enough wealth on a net basis left
to plunder.

We need more of the people Obama and his gang of petty tyrants label
“rich,” “greedy,” and “mean spirited.” These are the people who can get
our country moving in the right direction, right away. Folks who have
spent their lives in the real world recognize the people Obama calls
“rich,” “greedy,” and “mean spirited” as “successful,” “accomplished,”
and “hard working.”

Now… before you send me an angry letter, ask yourself this question: If
America had the lowest corporate tax rate in the world (instead of the
highest), do you think we’d have more companies located here, or fewer?

If we got rid of the estate tax, which makes it impossible for
successful entrepreneurs to leave their companies to their children, do
you think we’d have more family businesses, or fewer? And if we taxed
all people at the same (hopefully low) rate, do you think more wealthy
people from around the world would want to live here, or fewer?

What can I do for the achievers? For one, I can stand up for them and
try to convince you, my dear readers, that we need them – and we need
more and more of them. As such, we shouldn’t treat them so badly or try
to steal from them so blatantly. More directly, of course, I can also
support them by telling them exactly what they can still do to get out
of that shearing line…

In the coming days, weeks, and months, you will see more and more
evidence of my support for the “rich.” I plan to offer you more and more
information about how to get your assets outside the reach of Mr. Obama
and his ilk, including more ideas like buying foreign real estate (which
is, in my view, the best way to get your assets out of the U.S. without
having to report a thing to the U.S. government).

You’ll find this information and other ways to protect yourself from
the currency crisis in my newsletter, Stansberry’s Investment Advisory.
Click here to gain access immediately.

Regards,

Porter Stansberry
]“”"]

Most Climate Science Data & Modeling Isn’t Very Exotic

admin — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:43:49 +0000

On 7/10/2011 4:35 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>>>> What is so interesting about the “controversy” is that, unlike quantun
>>>>>>>> mechanics, most of the modeling and data aren’t all too exotic.
>>
>>>>>>>> Most who are interested could figure it out.
>>
>>>>>>>> Check some thermometers and sat. images every few years and drill some
>>>>>>>> ice cores.
>>
>>>>>>>> Very little high level math is involved.
>>
>>>>>>>> The only conclusion is deniers are as dumb as stumps.
>>
>>>>>>>> Bret Cahill
>>
>>>>>>> That’s not very reassuring for the anti-deniers: “our programs are
>>>>>>> simplistic, so you can trust them”? ?In fact the trend in GCMs has
>>>>>>> been towards greater complexity as computing power has increased over
>>>>>>> the years. ?The resolution of these programs, which used to be
>>>>>>> continent sized, is now down to several hundred kilometers. ?But we
>>>>>>> need for the resolution to go to meters before we can be confident of
>>>>>>> their predictions.
>>
>>>>>>> “Further research is needed on the AGW hypothesis”.
>>
>>>>>> Resolution schmesolution. Without being able to model clouds,
>>
>>>>> They finished that off last year.
>>
>>>> “Finished that off”? ?Cite a paper.
>>
>>> http://www.sciencenews.org/index/generic/activity/view/id/67324/title…
>>
>>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827893.400-goodbye-grey-skies…
>>
>> Very weak.
>>
>> Both of those, along with the University of Chicago paper I am well aware
>> of, only model small portions of the atmosphere. There is nothing approaching
>> a general understanding.
>
> IOW you never read the study.
>
> But why should a denier read anything when all he has to do is say
> everything is a conspiracy?
>
>
> Bret Cahill

you mean the same way you deny that tax cuts create more revenue into
the treasury. The way you deny that tax cuts or at least stable taxes
help create jobs…. and the way that you deny that taking more of the
GDP from the private sector that creates it and giving it to the
government sector that wastes it will continue to damage and shrink the
private sector economy and that’s the only thing paying for all your
government nonsense and waste?

You mean the way that you deny and don’t read the facts?

you want to tax away $4.7 trillion dollars of the $15 trillion GDP

admin — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 03:16:54 +0000

On 6/24/2011 8:18 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> RD Sandman wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote in
>> news:0s67079bgfkkhtqrtdhsvnmu3rgt5ahaum @&*$?%4ax.com:
>>
>>> “Scout” wrote:
>>>> “Bob LeChevalier” wrote in message
>>>> news:fu0407l7mtfquqk1uinc347r1bh1fk7lst @&*$?%4ax.com…
>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> The bottom line is that they want single payer for all and that
>>>>>> payer is the government. Not necessarily a bad thing, but how in
>>>>>> the world do they expect to pay for it?
>>>>>
>>>>> The way every government in the world that has single payer pays for
>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> By going broke?
>>>
>>> Most other countries are not growing broke.
>>
>> Interesting, the CBO was in an article today talking about how close this
>> country is to disaster on the debt.
>
> The same article possibly.
>
> Using the baseline scenario, in which the Bush tax cuts expire, along
> with all other temporary measures, everything improves.

Improves for who? The government needs money to pay for what they have
already spent….. taxing the rich of all their profits won’t cover
your expensive government taste.

Show us a scenario that will pay for all your spending…. You need
$1.5 Trillion more Dollars a year to get close to paying the bills and
bump that up to $2 Trillion to start a 30 – 40 year QUEST to pay down
the $15trillan in NATIONAL DEBT

Where will you tax 2 trillion dollars? That is 13% of the $15Trillion
dollar GDP. You tax away 18% of the GDP presently. That means you want
to tax away $4.7 trillion dollars of the $15 trillion GDP, How will
30% of the GDP being stolen from the people that created it affect the
economy?

IF YOU don’t raise taxes and you can double the GDP by growing the
economy over the next ten years by allowing people to keep what they
earn. You would increase the tax reciepts into the Federal Treasury
to $4.65 Trillion.

The ONLY way to stop deficit spending is to cap Federal spending and
release Capitalism from the chains of Federal Socialism.

If Anthony Weiner isn’t going to live up to his MARRIAGE vows then he also won’t live up to his OATH OF OFFICE.

admin — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 02:29:34 +0000

> On 6/23/2011 4:00 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> >> wrote:
>>>> The bottom line is that they want single payer for all and that payer is
>>>> the government. Not necessarily a bad thing, but how in the world do
>>>> they expect to pay for it? Social Security is already 20% of the budget
>>>> and forecast to increase in cost by 70% by the end of the decade.
>>>> Medicare/Medicaid is another 21% and Medicare is forecast to increase in
>>>> cost by 77% and Medicaid by 99% by the end of the decade.
>>>
>>> Not only can’t the federal government afford it.
>>
>> Odd that several other countries are managing to afford it.
>>
>>> it will destroy the private economy in the long run
>>
>> and they have healthy private economies as well.
>>
>>> Single payer government health care has crippled the economy
>>> every where it’s tried

>>
>> Germany’s economy is doing just dandy

Yes if;

The gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) of
Germany is 2,863,000,000,000 .
GDP Per Capita: 34,800
GDP Real Growth Rate: 1.3%

From 1991 until 2010, Germany’s average quarterly GDP Growth was 0.29
percent … This page includes: Germany GDP Growth Rate chart,
historical data and news.

*IF* 1.3% *is RAGING*

Keep in mind the margin of error is usually 2% so they may actually be
flat or negative but I’ll accept their numbers for the lack luster
numbers that they are.

All the economies that have government health care are habitually weak
and their best years look about like our worst years.

Germany can’t run 4 wars and they can’t defeat communism and they can’t
feed Africa and they don’t fund 30% of the IMF or NATO or the UN……
With a GDP like that we would be bankrupt in less than a decade.

Germany never paid to land a man on the moon…..

If Anthony Weiner isn’t going to live up to his MARRIAGE vows then he also won’t live up to his OATH OF OFFICE.

admin — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:41:16 +0000

On 6/23/2011 5:47 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Gray Ghost @&*$?%yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If you think that the Constitution gives the Congress and the President the
>> power to run the nation’s economy
>
> That is what “regulate interstate commerce” means when almost all of
> that $14.7 trillion economy is inherently interstate.
>
> The portions of the economy that are entirely intrastate don’t add
> much to the GDP.

If so then there is no reason to step on the toes of the States internal
economy to force a few more regulations.

You don’t need to extend it with interpretations that call things
“effecting” the economy “interstate Commerce”.

If Anthony Weiner isn’t going to live up to his MARRIAGE vows then he also won’t live up to his OATH OF OFFICE.

admin — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:19:49 +0000

On 6/23/2011 5:15 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Gray Ghost @&*$?%yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote in
>>> news:2n9vv6hefqtieumf37fa048uqfb43gj7km @&*$?%4ax.com:
>>>>> Well them maybe you jerk offs should decide what it is, becuase during the
>>>>> health care “debate” you claimed it wasn’t a tax.
>>>>
>>>> I made no such claim. And I personally don’t care what it is, and I
>>>> also think that Obama should indeed raise taxes on everyone until the
>>>> budget deficit is eliminated, regardless of his promise. Fiscal
>>>> responsibility is more important than campaign promises.
>>>
>>> Oh really? Are yopu some kind of f&*$?%g financial genius?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> The debt currently = GDP and is expected to double in 8 years.
>>
>> Yes. Therefore, taxes should be raised to eliminate that problem.
>> Ending the wars, and eliminating ALL of the Bush tax cuts solves most
>> of the problem.
>
> The CBO just put out a forecast that backs me up. Letting the Bush
> tax cuts expire and letting the alternate minimum tax stay unchanged
> completely eliminates the deficit in a few years.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/cbo-well-only-have-giant-deficits-if-congress-wants-giant-deficits/2011/05/19/AG3w7pfH_blog.html
>
> > < its long-term budget outlook (pdf), and it shows the same thing as
> < always: If Congress lets the Bush tax cuts expire or offsets their
> < extension, implements the Affordable Care Act as scheduled and makes
> < or offset the Medicare cuts prescribed by the 1997 Balanced Budget
> < Act — which CBO calls the “extended baseline scenario” — the national
> < debt will be totally manageable. If Congress passes laws extending
> < the Bush tax cuts without offsetting the cost, repealing the
> < Affordable Care Act and its cost controls and protecting doctors from
> < Medicare cuts without making up the savings elsewhere — the
> < “alternative fiscal scenario” — the national debt will be totally out
> < of control:
>
> Embedded link:
> http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/122xx/doc12212/06-21-Long-Term_Budget_Outlook.pdf
>
>
>>> and need
>>> Needs to hire new workers to make sell and servie the product.
>>
>> They could hire workers now, but they won’t because they cannot sell
>> the product. Similarly, housing prices are dropping because people
>> aren’t buying houses at the current prices.
>>
>> Eliminating the Bush tax cuts won’t change any of this.
>
> It eliminates the bulk of the deficit by about 2015.

The economic crash from tax hikes would cause a decrease in tax receipts
into the Treasury….. using a linear formula of dollar for dollar tax
raised to taxes realized is not exactly using your brain.

Higher taxes will likely produce fewer tax dollars not more in a weak
economy.

Our economy is flat-lining and you want to bludgeon it to death.

If Anthony Weiner isn’t going to live up to his MARRIAGE vows then he also won’t live up to his OATH OF OFFICE.

admin — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:44:17 +0000

>> Gray Ghost wrote:
>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote in
>>> news:2n9vv6hefqtieumf37fa048uqfb43gj7km @&*$?%4ax.com:
>>>>> Well them maybe you jerk offs should decide what it is, becuase during the
>>>>> health care “debate” you claimed it wasn’t a tax.
>>
>>>> I made no such claim. And I personally don’t care what it is, and I
>>>> also think that Obama should indeed raise taxes on everyone until the
>>>> budget deficit is eliminated, regardless of his promise. Fiscal
>>>> responsibility is more important than campaign promises.
>>
>>> Oh really? Are yopu some kind of f&*$?%g financial genius?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> The debt currently = GDP and is expected to double in 8 years.

Problem is, GDP isn’t going to double….

We are falling off a cliff in slow motion. Keep looking for the
ground you’ll kiss it real hard, one of these days.

All you need is an FD:GDP:1934:10.9 %:1935:8.9 %:1936:13.0 %:1937:5.1%:By 1936 the U.S. economy had regained the ground it lost during the devastating 1929-33 period:1937 FDR listened to conservatives/balanced the budget:the economy slipped

admin — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 23:38:39 +0000

On 6/15/2011 9:51 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
>
>
> All you need is an FD:GDP:1934:10.9 %:1935:8.9 %:1936:13.0 %:
> 1937:5.1%:By 1936, the U.S. economy had regained the ground it lost
> during the devastating 1929-33 period:1937 FDR listened to
> conservatives to balance the budget:the economy slipped into a sharp
> recession and shrank 3.4%:spending resumed and growth exploded
>
>
>
>
> 1939: 8.1 percent
>
> 1940: 8.8 percent
>
> 1941: 17.1 percent
>
> 1942: 18.5 percent
>
> 1943: 16.4 percent
>
> 1944: 8.1 percent
>
> By 1944, the U.S. economy was twice as large as it was in 1930 and
> almost three times the size it was in 1933. The decade between 1934
> and 1944 marked a truly remarkable period of growth. Of course, a big
> chunk of the above-trend
>
>
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Pawlenty-5-Percent-Growth-dg-4192262000.html?x=0
>
> Pawlenty’s 5 Percent Growth Solution Makes Historical Sense
>
>
>
> Daniel Gross, On Tuesday June 14, 2011, 4:16 pm EDT
>
>
> Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, now a candidate for the
> Republican presidential nomination, has been getting a lot of grief
> for his promise that the U.S. economy could grow five percent per year
> for 10 years if only we follow his program of big tax cuts, spending
> reductions and deregulation. The claim has raised eyebrows across the
> spectrum. After all, $15 trillion economies simply don’t grow that
> rapidly over such long periods of time. Pawlenty argues that “we’ve
> done it before” and “the same can happen again.”Between 1983 and 1987,
> he pointed out, the economy grew at an average rate of 4.9 percent,
> and between 1996 and 1999, the economy grew at an average rate of 4.7
> percent.
>
> Sticklers will point out that growth in those impressive periods was
> less than five percent, and that these two golden periods combined
> didn’t last 10 years. Pawlenty’s response has been to accuse the
> doubters of not believing in America. “And this idea that we can’t
> have 5 percent growth in America is hogwash,” as he put it in last
> night’s debate. “It’s a defeatist attitude. If China can have 5
> percent growth and Brazil can have 5 percent growth, then the United
> States of America can have 5 percent growth.” (Sticklers will point
> out that poor countries such as China and Brazil can grow by 5 percent
> with relative ease because they’re poor.)
>
> But here’s the thing. The U.S. has shown an ability to grow at more
> than five percent a year for several years in a row. And it did so at
> a time when many people doubted the capacity of the U.S. to reinvent
> itself and recover its economic footing. It’s surprising that Pawlenty
> doesn’t talk more about that period.
>
> The Commerce Department has GDP numbers that go back to 1930. Click
> here and then select “Annual” in the options section. The data show
> that between 1930 and 1933, the U.S. endured four straight years of
> horrific contraction. The economy shrank by more than a quarter.
>
> But then look what happened. The panic stopped and growth resumed at
> an impressive pace. As follows:
>
> 1934: 10.9 percent
>
> 1935: 8.9 percent
>
> 1936: 13.0 percent
>
> 1937: 5.1 percent
>
> By 1936, the U.S. economy had regained the ground it lost during the
> devastating 1929-33 period. In 1937, the economy slipped into a sharp
> recession and shrank 3.4 percent. But it returned to growth, and the
> economy enjoyed several more years of extremely rapid growth.
>
> 1939: 8.1 percent

Pre war manufacturing when we sold supplies to the British and the
Russians and American industries were paid in GOLD.

> 1940: 8.8 percent
>
> 1941: 17.1 percent

War started in earnest for America 1941.
>
> 1942: 18.5 percent
>
> 1943: 16.4 percent
>
> 1944: 8.1 percent

End of war supplies sales.

We started reconstruction in Europe and Japan, The Marshall Plan was a
boom as we made money from the rebuilding.

The Baby Boom started at the end of WWII 1945 – 1965….

> By 1944, the U.S. economy was twice as large as it was in 1930 and
> almost three times the size it was in 1933. The decade between 1934
> and 1944 marked a truly remarkable period of growth. Of course, a big
> chunk of the above-trend growth can be ascribed to World War II, which
> supercharged America’s productive capacity. But the U.S. didn’t enter
> the war until the end of 1941, and the gains before Pearl Harbor were
> quite impressive.

Yes and there were war materials being sold to Europe and Russia pre
1941. Those Gains were fueled by GOLD from Europe and Russia preparing
for war with Germany.

Our own government confiscating profits from one Business and spending
it on war does little to create wealth.

Obama Voters Forced to Sell Soda Cans for Food Money

admin — Tue, 10 May 2011 01:28:41 +0000

On 5/9/2011 3:32 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> Take a look at ANY country, more debt more problems.
>
> That’s why the high tax budget balancing Clinton economic boom was so
> popular and GOP tax cut deficit / recession is so unpopular.
>
>
> Bret Cahill

It was Government cutting costs that the “PEACE DIVIDEND” that created
the boom…. smaller government is better. The GDP is just so large
and the more government takes of the GDP pie then the less there is for
the private sector to use to grow the economy.

Sign the Christian Coalition of America’s Petition for the Repeal of ObamaCare

admin — Mon, 09 May 2011 22:08:46 +0000

On 5/8/2011 1:00 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%Blackhole.NebulaX.com> > wrote:
>> On 5/6/2011 11:16 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%Blackhole.NebulaX.com> >>> wrote:
>>>>> More taxes is the answer. Go back to the Clinton tax rates and we’ll
>>>>> have a controllable deficit and probably a booming economy.
>>>>
>>>> How will the GDP increase while you extract more money from people
>>>
>>> 1) The money is extracted whether by debt or by taxes.
>>>
>>> 2) Government is part of GDP, so cutting government may in fact cut
>>> GDP.
>>
>> Tell us how government creates wealth and therefore creates GDP.
>
> GDP does not only come from wealth. It comes from production (work)
> and other things, including government spending.

Government hands out cash to workers that do nothing of value….

What product/service does government sell at a profit? If they don’t
sell at a profit then they don’t add to the GDP. Infrastructure was
paid for by the corporations who

Private industry builds the Space shuttle and and government uses the
up, but the money came from the companies that paid tax so you get zero
boost to the economy(GDP) when you take money from company “A” and give
it to company “B” and the government just made the decision how it would
be wasted rather than the original company earning it.

Sign the Christian Coalition of America’s Petition for the Repeal of ObamaCare

admin — Mon, 09 May 2011 14:46:25 +0000

On 5/8/2011 12:21 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
> On May 8, 9:01 am, Beam Me Up Scotty > Everyth…@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>> On 5/6/2011 11:16 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty >>> wrote:
>>>>> More taxes is the answer. Go back to the Clinton tax rates and we’ll
>>>>> have a controllable deficit and probably a booming economy.
>>
>>>> How will the GDP increase while you extract more money from people
>>
>>> 1) The money is extracted whether by debt or by taxes.
>>
>>> 2) Government is part of GDP, so cutting government may in fact cut
>>> GDP.
>>
>> Tell us how government creates wealth and therefore creates GDP.
>
> Well, GDP is pretty well defined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product
>
> GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending +
> (exports – imports)
>
> What you want is some other measure. GDP has its problems, that’s for
> sure.
> The important part is it’s well defined. I have quite a bit of
> problem dealing with
> people who misuse terms then attempt to defend their misuse.
>
> I’m not sure why you make a comment about “creates wealth” since
> that’s
> not a well defined term. I could defend government creating wealth
> but that’s
> immaterial to the issue.

Then GDP is a poor measurement of a Nations wealth…. the money being
diverted from (Private Investment) that is money reused by business to
grow and continue the function of business. The Government Spending is
NOT helping the economy, and in fact are weakening Private Investments.

The existing equation: GDP = C + I + G + (X – M)
The possible FIX/solution: GDP = Consumer spending + Investment +
((Government spending) – (M1 printed new money/M total money)) + (X
export – M import)

Government “printing and borrowing” and spending is harming the GDP and
economy not helping the economy.

["""[It will just be a matter of time before the Fed has to make a major
decision. It will either have to continue to create new money and fund
the Congress or it will have to stop and maybe even reverse. If the Fed
continues, it will eventually risk hyperinflation and a complete
destruction of the currency. If the Fed stops (which I think it
ultimately will once we have high price inflation), then we will
experience a major depression and the federal government will be forced
to cut spending dramatically.
]“”"]
http://libertarianinvestments.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-fed-creates-money-out-of-thin-air.html

Sign the Christian Coalition of America’s Petition for the Repeal of ObamaCare

admin — Sun, 08 May 2011 16:04:40 +0000

On 5/6/2011 11:16 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%Blackhole.NebulaX.com> > wrote:
>>> More taxes is the answer. Go back to the Clinton tax rates and we’ll
>>> have a controllable deficit and probably a booming economy.
>>
>> How will the GDP increase while you extract more money from people
>
> 1) The money is extracted whether by debt or by taxes.

GDP isn’t debt if you have the cash to invest in your business you don’t
need to borrow money and pay interest.

And if you don’t get taxed then you have the cash to invest.

Sign the Christian Coalition of America’s Petition for the Repeal of ObamaCare

admin — Sun, 08 May 2011 16:01:51 +0000

Tell us how government creates wealth and therefore creates GDP.

Sign the Christian Coalition of America’s Petition for the Repeal of ObamaCare

admin — Thu, 05 May 2011 14:03:54 +0000

On 5/5/2011 8:24 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> P&*$?%s wrote:
>> On 5/4/2011 7:45 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>>> On May 4, 7:01 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty >>> Everyth…@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/2011 9:47 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On May 4, 9:28 am, Gary Gore wrote:
>>>>>> Conservative members of Congress have introduced legislation to end
>>>>>> ALL federal taxpayer funding of abortion
>>>>
>>>>> There is no federal taxpayer funding of abortion so no action need be
>>>>> taken.
>>>>
>>>> So you have no complaints about legislation that will create no new law.
>>>>
>>>> With no opposition it should pass easily.
>>>
>>> I’m very much against redundant legislation. We don’t have time
>>> to waste on this rhetorical posturing. We need to raise the debt
>>> limit
>>> to save our country and the world economy.
>>
>> Yes, more debt is the answer.
>
> More taxes is the answer. Go back to the Clinton tax rates and we’ll
> have a controllable deficit and probably a booming economy.

How will the GDP increase while you extract more money from people and
fewer people try to grow their business?

the faint echo of a speech Lenin gave in an icy square in Moscow 100 years ago

admin — Sun, 01 May 2011 01:36:24 +0000

Below: See Letter from Porter Stansberry to Obama: ‘We simply can’t
afford this nonsense anymore…’

Saturday, April 23, 2011

In honor of Monday’s national Tax Day, I wrote the following letter to
Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. Please feel free to pass this around if you
like it…

Dear Mr. President,

Welcome to the ashbin of society.

With the speech you gave last week, you have firmly and permanently put
yourself in the same garbage bag as all the other communists and
socialists of the 20th century.

Your speech sounded like the faint echo of a speech Lenin gave in an icy
square in Moscow 100 years ago.

The promises you made, Mr. President, about the government giving people
things they can’t provide for themselves – a better income, reliable
health care, an advanced education, cheaper mortgages, a “shiny, happy”
life – have been made time and time again… sometimes by speakers even
better than you.

And they have always been lies.

While the government can demand obedience (and taxes), it can’t mandate
dedication, creativity, or innovation. The fact is, the government
itself is nothing more (or less) than the organized ambitions of the people.

That’s why, over many decades (and many different tax structures), U.S.
tax revenues have been remarkably stable at around 20% of GDP. That’s
why, as you surely know, Mr. President, changing the tax code will not
result in increased tax revenue.

Two things have changed – forever – about American politics.

Thus, all your lies are now exposed almost instantly and broadcast to
millions of people via websites and services like the Drudge Report,
Twitter, and Facebook. Socialism cannot possibly survive over any long
period of time in a society with a free media – because socialism is
based on a lie. Facebook means the “half-life” of socialism is now weeks
instead of years.

Even mainstream publications like the Wall Street Journal have called
you a liar recently. They have no choice. Your lies were broadcast to
the entire world long before their op-ed pieces appeared.

Your advisors told you none of these “bloggers” mattered. All you had to
do was promise more benefits to more voters and then force fewer voters
to pay for it all. I’m sure you did the political calculus… You believed
your power to bribe and bamboozle the poor and the ignorant was stronger
than the resentment you’d engender among the “rich.” And I must admit…
since at least World War II, that’s been a safe bet in American politics.

But you forgot one critical factor: We simply can’t afford this nonsense
anymore…

Immediately after your speech, the price of silver went from $39 to a
new high above $42. Gold went up, too.

Americans now owe a total of $56 trillion. Without the Fed’s
money-printing, it’s unlikely we could afford even the interest on these
existing debts… much less the $1.5 trillion or more in debt you continue
to rack up year after year by promising benefits we haven’t earned.

Sooner or later, our foreign creditors are going to decide our
money-printing amounts to a default, and they will stop buying our
bonds. On that day, everyone who trusts you, everyone who believes in
your lies, will be wiped out.

But that won’t be as many people as you expect.

Almost every American knows in his heart what made this country great
for the 200 years between 1776 and 1976. It wasn’t the lies of our
presidents. It wasn’t our ability to print money and rip off our Chinese
creditors. It wasn’t the modern crybaby mentality of our school system
or our unions. It wasn’t the baby boomer’s dream of a 40-year retirement
with free prescription drugs.

And it sure as hell wasn’t a suave, made-for-TV version of Karl Marx
promising everything to everyone, but with no way to pay for it.

No. What built America was her people’s unwavering faith that they were
free to enjoy the rewards of their accomplishments.

Regards,

Porter Stansberry
Stansberry’s Investment Advisory

They got that way by working hard to achieve the original American
Dream… not Obama’s new “progressive” American Dream, where everyone can
live at the expense of his neighbor. That’s why Obama’s grandstanding
must be viewed in a new way. We need to realize when Obama vilifies the
“rich,” he is vilifying the “achievers.”

And keep in mind… these achievers are already paying their share. The
top 5% of income earners in America pay nearly 60% of this country’s
income taxes.

You’ll find this information and other ways to protect yourself from
the currency crisis in my newsletter, Stansberry’s Investment Advisory.
Click here to gain access immediately.

Regards,

Porter Stansberry

US Trade rose in March … Economy is growing !!

admin — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:27:14 +0000

On 4/29/2011 10:14 AM, Repubs Lost Both Wars wrote:
> Demand for U.S. durable goods rose in March for a third consecutive
> month, indicating business investment will pick up.

Except that new taxes and more printing of money and more borrowing will
crush more private sector investment.

Redistribution takes the money from the private sector that earned it
and the government redistributes it to people that will do nothing to
earn it, they won’t invest it or hire a soul, they won’t spend it on
making next quarters GDP grow either.

The downward spiral into the abyss continues under the Socialist plans
to redistribute the wealth to those that don’t know how to use or create
wealth.

Ever wonder why MOM AND POP Mini-Marts and grocery stores go out of
business in poor neighborhoods? They can’t withstand all the theft of
their stock and when they lose too much stock to theft they have no
money in the cash register to replace what was stolen and the quantity
of stock on the shelves spirals downward until they have nothing left to
sell.

Like the Socialists stealing from the GDP will continue to empty the
shelves of jobs and investment that would normally grow the economy….

The Socialists just use regulation and taxes and mandates, rather than
hiding the beer under their coat. But theft is still theft.

Harry Hopeless Not Likely to Post Latest New Unemployment Claims at 429,000…about Where they were 5 Months Ago!

admin — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:39:10 +0000

On 4/28/2011 9:03 AM, wolfagain wrote:
> Looks like all those “Moving Right Along” comments about how the
> “Obama Recovery” was “surely but slowly” getting steadily better by
> H&*$?%e were all just more LOON B.S.! In fact the numbers suggest
> the Obama Economy is getting WORSE! Much worse! The only thing that is
> actually “moving right along” is the 2012 Election….and the End of
> the Obama Nightmare!

It has all been getting worse, slowly but surely, and the high spots
have all been lies. The stock market is a lie and is being propped up by
Obama, he buys stock with printed money from the Federal Reserve, and
borrowed money from China….. That’s the kind of thing that created
the 1929 crash in the stock market.

Banks are still failing and we still have 5 – 10 years of foreclosures
to sell at the rate they are selling…..

GDP can’t grow if Obama is taking more of it and regulating our GDP away
from the people that earned it. It will shrink as the amount we have to
reinvest in our private businesses is reduced.

Government and government intrusion into the private markets like the
stock markets and the mortgage markets is the only thing growing.

The more government we have the worse things will get…. until enough
people get it, we won’t be doing any better. Sure the Government and
the Liberal-Socialists will lie and cook the books to try to make it
look like things are better or NOT so bad, but that is a short term
false repair that will come back and bite us even harder.

Futile and Immoral

admin — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 20:29:56 +0000

On 4/22/2011 4:19 PM, Cassandra wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 04:34:43 -0700 (PDT), RH
> wrote:
>
>> Drug Control: Futile and Immoral
>> Robert Henderson
>>
>> During the nineteenth century, the period of Britain=92s greatest power,
>> comparative wealth and influence, drugs were freely available: at
>> first hashish and opium in various forms, followed by cocaine,
>> morphine and heroin in the latter part of the period. Not only did
>> the world not collapse and the country fall to ruin, Britain prospered
>> greatly: GDP in 1900 was approximately ten times what it was in 1800,
>> the population increased fourfold, social disorder decreased, the
>> political franchise was considerably broadened, industrialisation
>> proceeded apace and the Empire increased to become the only world
>> empire ever worthy of the name.
>>
>> Today we live in a country in which it is generally accepted that drug
>> taking ranging from hashish to heroin is widespread despite drugs
>> being illegal, expensive, difficult to obtain and of uncertain
>> quality. Yet even in these difficult financial times, Britain has the
>> fifth or sixth largest economy in the world, people are living ever
>> longer and the general health and prosperity of the population is much
>> improved and still improving and growing. Drug taking now is self-
>> evidently not going to bring society down or even seriously incommode
>> it.
>>
> Victorian London was of course a paradise where crime, drunkeness,
> social unrest and child prostitution never happened.
>

And Prohibition in the USA decreased crime….. NOT a chance.

At the end of Prohibition there were more bar-stools and more criminals
in jails.

4/21/11

admin — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:11:31 +0000

On 4/21/2011 7:19 AM, topcat wrote:
> “TheLoneRanger100″ wrote in message
> news:f9ef771f-0ad3-4d77-94b0-3addbfd22929 @&*$?%r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com…
>> Yup……..It’s 4/21/11, and after TWO YEARS President Chimpanzee has
>> TOTALLY F&*$?%D UP………There’s NO WAY around it………..The guy
>> is an INCOMPETENT, ARROGANT, F&*$?%K UP………..The Country is an
>> ABSOLUTE MESS, The Economy is an ABSOLUTE MESS, and the Democrats
>> have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to make the Situation Any
>> Better………Now the B&*$?%d is Starting Wars with Nations that
>> Haven’t Threatened America………….Donchaknow………..It’s
>> Definitely “HOAX &
>> CHAINS”………..word!…………
>
>
> BUT, BUT, Odumba is FIXING the econony….he’s fixing it so that no one has
> to work and everyone can just be on unemployment ENDLESSLY!!!
>
> And if Congress would just let him tax the so-called “rich” even more, the
> deficit would just *disappear*….POOF!
>
> TC

Your tax increase won’t increase money taken in by the Treasury…. it
will slow the economy causing a smaller GDP…. and that will mean the
Federal Treasury will take in less money.

Raise taxes and watch people have fewer jobs and less income to spend.

Soaking rich won’t erase deficit

admin — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:28:58 +0000

On 4/15/2011 6:11 PM, masonc wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:53:07 -0700 (PDT), Gary Forbis
> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 15, 2:59 am, No Surren…@never.net wrote:
>>> The problem, sir, is a simple one — that if we were to tax these individuals 100 percent of their income, we still could
>>> not cover our deficit this year alone.
>>
>> That’s very simplistic. Let’s begin to look closer.
>> In the US today there are 400 individuals who have
>> as much wealth as the bottom 150,000,000 people.
>
> Can you give the source of this? (not doubting, just curious)
>
> However, there is a difference between “wealth” and “income.”
>
> In 1968 *all* debts could have been paid from wealth, with the
> wealthy retaining their position of high wealth. (fact — but I’m
> not going to regurgitate the data now)
>
> –
> masonc
>

WEALTH IS NOT INCOME.

WE TAX INCOME

GDP-Gross Domestic Product is $14Trillion and the National debt is
$14.4Trillion dollars.

The Treasury gets about 18% of the $14trillion GDP which is
$2.5trillion….. rough estimate.

If you tax 100% of GDP you will have NO jobs or cash to use for making
next year more profitable. America will collapse.

Join the Christian Coalition’s Campaign to Stop Taxpayer Funding for Abortion

admin — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:54:22 +0000

On 4/16/2011 9:29 AM, Horton wrote:
> On Apr 14, 10:55 am, Deep Dudu wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:26:05 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>>> Deep Dudu wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:23:57 -0700 (PDT), Gary Gore
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Conservative members of Congress have introduced legislation to end
>>>>> ALL federal taxpayer funding of abortion – and they need our support!
>>
>>>>> Take action today! Sign the Christian Coalition’s petition, contact
>>>>> Congress – and be sure to use our “Donate your status” application
>>>>> below to help spread the word to others!
>>
>>>>> Speak out today. Tell Congress it’s time to get taxpayers OUT of the
>>>>> abortion business!
>>
>>>> Federal tax money is not used for abortions.
>>
>>> If it’s given to Planned PArenthood, it’s used for abortion.
>>
>> Only 3% of PP services are abortions.
>
> Then why is it that all they talk about is aborting white babies and
> stopping the procreation of non-whites?
>
> If our children want to avoid pregnancy they should be like you and
> never have pre-marital sex.
>
> We need to give more money to the Christian churches of America, not
> socialism. Jesus is coming and he’s going to be very angry at the
> Liberals.
>
> The only way to save this country is to pay teachers $20,000 a year,
> stop planned parenthood, defund PBS and NPR, triple military spending,

Everything but tripling military spending.

> cut taxes to the rich and make the middle class shoulder the tax
> burden of big buisiness so that they don’t export our jobs to
> China.
Lets NOT raise taxes and then government Liberals won’t have the money
to give to BIG BUSINESS.

> Without the Bush tax cuts this country would be in a deep
> recession and the jobless would be roaming the streets.

With higher taxes the economy/GDP will shrink.

Soaking rich won’t erase deficit

admin — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 03:26:06 +0000

On 4/14/2011 8:14 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Apr 14, 5:42 pm, Lamont Cranston
> wrote:
>> On 4/14/2011 11:05 AM, No Surren…@never.net wrote:
>>
>> Sure it will.
>
> it sure will.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Obama will have a +50% rise in debt/GDP

The Liberal fallacy….

admin — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 05:45:23 +0000

If raising taxes raised revenue then why have taxes been at 91% in the
past and yet the revenue to the Treasury won’t increases above 19% of GDP.

While taxes were lower, the revenue doesn’t drop below 14.4% so the
idea that raising INCOME taxes on individuals will increase the revenue
to the Treasury is a false promise.

The most important thing is to get income into the Treasury to cover the
money spent, and to cut the money spent to equal the money taken in by
the Treasury. At this moment in time we need to increase income to the
Treasury and cut spending at the same time.

The way to do that is to cut government spending and regulations and cut
or continue lower taxes to get the GDP to grow. The Growing GDP will
increase revenue to the Treasury.

It’s like the old idea that you’ll sell more apples for 25 cents and
make more money than if you try to get $10,000.00 for one apple.

When taxes get high enough people stop working, it’s better to get 25%
of their work rather than 91% of them sitting on their a&*$?%s doing nothing.

I know because I cut my work to ZERO and that makes Obama’s Federal
income tax from me to be zero. I did it on purpose and I will continue
to earn ZERO until Obama is gone. GE made billions and used lawyers and
lobbyists to allow GE to pay ZERO…..

When Taxes are at high numbers it becomes worth while to buy lawyers and
lobbyists and accountants to get away from the high tax and if that
doesn’t work then it pays to just stop earning money.

Chomsky Talks Fear in Western Society

admin — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:18:55 +0000

On 4/13/2011 1:13 AM, Anonymous wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:10:12 +0200, @&*$?%none.com">nihil @&*$?%none.com wrote:
>
>> The idea has some merit. If you are sick you go to the physician. If
>> your car is broken you go to the mechanic. If you want to increase the
>> wealth of a population then transfer wealth to those with a proven
>> record of wealth creation.
>
> It’s not about increasing the wealth of the population. It’s about
> distributing wealth. The top few percent already own over 90% of the
> county’s wealth and I can’t see how giving them more is helpful to anyone
> but themselves.
>

you take the short view….. redistribution is going to destroy
wealth creation and the “real GDP” won’t grow and our National wealth
won’t grow. If you notice, in a health capitalist economy, the rich get
richer and the poor all have toilet paper and big FLAT SCREEN TV’s which
is more than they have in CUBA.

That will mean the poor will get a short term bump in their personal
wealth while the Nation takes along term loss of wealth.

Socialists redistribution is a short term feel good ploy to buy short
term support to win elections and power. Even the Socialists know that
they will in the long term redistribute and concentrate all the money
into the hands of the politically ELITE SOCIALISTS.

The Liberal fallacy….

admin — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:40:24 +0000

If raising taxes raised revenue then why have taxes been at 91% in the
past and yet the revenue to the Treasury won’t increases above 19% of GDP.

While taxes were lower, the revenue doesn’t drop below 14.4% so the
idea that raising INCOME taxes on individuals will increase the revenue
to the Treasury is a false promise.

The way to do that is to cut government spending and regulations and cut
or continue lower taxes to get the GDP to grow. The Growing GDP will
increase revenue to the Treasury.

It’s like the old idea that you’ll sell more apples for 25 cents and
make more money than if you try to get $10,000.00 for one apple.

When taxes get high enough people stop working, it’s better to get 25%
of their work rather than 91% of them sitting on their a&*$?%s doing nothing.

When Taxes are at high numbers it becomes worth while to buy lawyers and
lobbyists and accountants to get away from the high tax and if that
doesn’t work then it pays to just stop earning money.

The Liberal fallacy….

admin — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:52:34 +0000

If raising taxes raised revenue then why have taxes been at 91% in the
past and yet the revenue to the Treasury won’t increases above 19% of GDP.

While taxes were lower, the revenue doesn’t drop below 14.4% so the
idea that raising INCOME taxes on individuals will increase the revenue
to the Treasury is a false promise.

The way to do that is to cut government spending and regulations and cut
or continue lower taxes to get the GDP to grow. The Growing GDP will
increase revenue to the Treasury.

It’s like the old idea that you’ll sell more apples for 25 cents and
make more money than if you try to get $10,000.00 for one apple.

When taxes get high enough people stop working, it’s better to get 25%
of their work rather than 91% of them sitting on their a&*$?%s doing nothing.

IMF sees dire future for US

admin — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 18:56:40 +0000

On 4/6/2011 9:17 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:
> On 4/5/2011 11:16 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 4/5/2011 9:46 PM, ray wrote:
>>> In article @&*$?%news.datemas.de>,
>>> Lamont Cranston @&*$?%FogYourMind.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> That is exactly what the CEOs say: don’t touch my bonus it costs only
>>>>>> 2 years of health coverage for all my unimportant lazy employees. And
>>>>>> besides it comes from the bail out money, which are the tax dollars -
>>>>>> you don’t want this bizarre taxation of taxation. And I work so hard
>>>>>> outsourcing all I could from the country. No, no, I earn this bonus -
>>>>>> I am a top talent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well just keep on taxing. We’ve seen how well it’s worked out in the
>>>>> past.
>>>>
>>>> The periods of greatest economic expansion have occurred during the
>>>> periods of greatest taxation, Ray-ray. Why are conservatives so
>>>> f&*$?%g
>>>> stupid?
>>
>>
>> Government growth isn’t really growth….
>>
>>
>> The greatest drop in Government tax receipts is when you have the
>> greatest taxation.
>
> Actually, just the opposite is true, you ignorant troll.

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/Images/current-tax-receipts-600.jpg

The problem is that to even get the optimistic projection below, you
have to get a growing GDP in a market where “taxes and spending” are
going up. Taxes and government spending don’t stimulate the economy they
depress it. So the below graph is likely to look much worse in reality.

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/Images/repealing-tax-cuts-600.jpg

Increasing the taxes to 91%(again) will only gain 1.4% of GDP as tax
receipts to the Treasury. The GDP is $14Trillion and 1.4% of 14trillion
means that raising taxes to 91% gets you an additional 200 billion.
Which is a drop in the bucket.

The way to increase tax receipts to the Treasury is to increase GDP so
that, that somewhat constant 18.2% of GDP over 30 years that is taken in
by the Treasury as tax is increased since the pie that you are taking
the 18.2% from (The GDP) is getting larger.

What is best for the government’s Treasury is that the “real GDP” grows
and growing GDP creates wealth and the new wealth is then taxed at the
same old 18.2% rate that we seem to get whether individual rates are 91%
or 35%.

The problem is that Liberals think that they can lie to everyone and
cook the books so that it looks like GDP is growing, Liberals do that by
adding government printed money into the GDP and calling that wealth
creation and ultimately calling it GDP. They then spend the taxes that
they get from their “funny money” and after a while the scheme falls
apart and the “funny money” bubble bursts.

That’s why Liberal-Socialism is never going to work. You’re too stupid
to understand why your plan destroys its self. Raising taxes will lead
to lower GDP and ultimately lower taxes to the treasury to support your
ever growing government.

IMF sees dire future for US

admin — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:23:17 +0000

On 4/5/2011 9:46 PM, ray wrote:
> In article @&*$?%news.datemas.de>,
> Lamont Cranston @&*$?%FogYourMind.com> wrote:
>
>>>> That is exactly what the CEOs say: don’t touch my bonus it costs only
>>>> 2 years of health coverage for all my unimportant lazy employees. And
>>>> besides it comes from the bail out money, which are the tax dollars -
>>>> you don’t want this bizarre taxation of taxation. And I work so hard
>>>> outsourcing all I could from the country. No, no, I earn this bonus -
>>>> I am a top talent.
>>>
>>> Well just keep on taxing. We’ve seen how well it’s worked out in the
>>> past.
>>
>> The periods of greatest economic expansion have occurred during the
>> periods of greatest taxation, Ray-ray. Why are conservatives so f&*$?%g
>> stupid?

Government growth isn’t really economic growth….

The greatest drop in Government tax receipts is when you have the
greatest taxation.

Past taxation shows that *the government Treasury* takes in less when
taxes go up and in fact they NEVER take in less than 14% of GDP….

When taxes are dropped *the government Treasury* takes in more tax
receipts but never above 19% of GDP.

SO what ever you set Federal income tax at, the likely outcome will be
the economy will speed up or slow down but tax receipts will move in the
opposite direction of the actual taxes and will always remain within
that 14%-19% of GDP window.

It would then be better to have an economy that’s humming along with
modest taxes and a descent GDP so that the Treasury will take in 14% to
19% of the GDP that has a positive and growing line on the chart for
GDP. Since 14% of a growing GDP is more than 14% of a stagnant GDP and
Growing government stifling the private sector is the way to achieve a
stifled GDP, the best thing for the GDP is what is best for the
Government. The problem today is that Government is LYING to us and to
it’s self saying that more government will mean more GDP.(self preservation)

The problem arises when *GREEDY LIBERALS* want to take more from the
people and give it to themselves via government. That’s when you hit the
wall and you try taxing more and more and regulate and more and all it
does is choke off the growing GDP and then you get less taxes realized
in receipts coming into the TREASURY. Economics is saying that
government is like a parasite, it is growing exponentially and killing
the host. The only way to survive is to stop the growth of the
parasitic government and keep it in remission to keep the economy alive.
Regulating Government is more important than regulating the free markets.

It would seem the sweet spot is ~18% of GDP or there about and to get
there you need to regulate government spending(the size of government),
that will allow you to regulate taxes and grow the GDP which will
increase the Treasury’s receipts from income tax. The number that we
need to track and follow is Gross Domestic Product. That number should
automatically move the tax rate up when we hit 18% of GDP(to slow the
economy) for tax receipts and down when the Treasury is taking in only
15% of GDP(to speed up the economy) as tax receipts.

Stable modest taxes will create the best outcome and REGULATED
government gets us to modest taxes. Someone once said “Government that
rules the least, rules the best”

Can Politicians “Do The Math” ?

admin — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 03:18:54 +0000

On 4/4/2011 6:42 PM, Voltaire wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:24:43 -0500, “Eddie Haskell”
> wrote:
>
>>
>> “Voltaire” wrote in message
>> news:0hgkp690n22c8cg4av575pin71lauikntj @&*$?%4ax.com…
>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 15:53:20 -0500, “Eddie Haskell”
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> “ByeStander” wrote in message
>>>> news:cafip6l3i4htaiv65lqgbvl9nuuo1je2kf @&*$?%4ax.com…
>>>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 00:46:36 -0700 (PDT), Dänk 666
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 3, 12:57 am, ByeStander wrote:
>>>>>>> Does Harry Reid know how many fingers on his hands to hold up to make
>>>>>>> a “trillion” ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Without siding with the criminal Republicans, I’ve noticed that
>>>>>> leftarded Democraps are quick to denounce all budget cuts suggested by
>>>>>> Republicans, without suggesting any alternative cuts of their own. In
>>>>>> just the last week alone, I’ve read of complaints ranging from cutting
>>>>>> USAID in Africa to cutting cowboy poetry in Nevada.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Federal revenues total five trillion, yet the federal budget calls for
>>>>>> ten trillion in spending. Even a first-grader realizes that the two
>>>>>> numbers do not add up. Either revenues must be increases — difficult
>>>>>> if not impossible during a major recession — or spending must be cut,
>>>>>> which is impossible since people riot when their free crack money is
>>>>>> taken away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The obvious solution is currency devaluation. Print new dollars to
>>>>>> cover the budget deficit: taxes remain the same, spending increases,
>>>>>> and everyone (except bankers) is happy. Free money for everyone, and
>>>>>> when hyperinflation ensues, the greedy merchants can be imprisoned for
>>>>>> raising prices.
>>>>>
>>>>> Currency devaluation is, in effect, a hidden tax on the poor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obama, Geithner, & Bernanke is making the poor, poorer, faster than
>>>>> any other team since Jimmy Carter.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but he’s making the rich poorer too so it’s okay.
>>>>
>>> You can’t be this stupid.
>>
>> Dan Rather didn’t tell you that inflation is raging?
>>
>> Damn moron.
>>
> see, there you go again falling apart all over yourself. What is the
> inflation rate? Why do you run and hide while trying to change the
> topic?

Inflation does NOT include food and energy so the numbers are skewed.
The inflation is much higher than the government admits.

unemployment is also skewed, 34% of all the people in the USA are too
young or too old to work…. then there are 9% out of work from
economics reasons, that’s 43% of America that isn’t working! 8% of
America are illegal aliens that work off the books or not at all, that’s
51% of Americans that don’t get out of a bed and go to a job.

We have 49% or about 150,000,000 that may actually be working in America.

Something tells me that even the numbers I found are no reporting the
truth and there are still more that are NOT working.

You need to add in the government workers to the unemployed or the
imaginary employed since they don’t add to the GDP but rather suck money
out of the investment in business’ which creates a downward spiral of
Gross Domestic Products.

If people have jobs that don’t produce or do anything or accomplish
anything, like government… we shouldn’t count them as actually
working and producing GDP.

Gasoline up 100% under Obama

admin — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 00:17:14 +0000

On 4/3/2011 7:51 PM, RichTravsky wrote:
> CB wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 18:33:50 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>> @&*$?%Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/2/2011 3:46 PM, CB wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 11:29:27 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>> @&*$?%Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/2/2011 6:44 AM, CB wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 03:13:46 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>>>> @&*$?%Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/1/2011 8:38 PM, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2011 6:12 PM, CB wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:27:31 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>>>>>>> @&*$?%Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2011 12:53 AM, Foo Fighter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article @&*$?%news.datemas.de>,
>>>>>>>>>>> Lamont Cranston @&*$?%FogYourMind.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2011 5:40 PM, Kulin Remailer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gasoline up 100% under Obama
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> “You lie!” It’s less than what it was under “Da Bush.”
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well. it’s a great tool to get people to conserve. I say $5 should
>>>>>>>>>>> really motivate us. Saves the Earth!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It will also make you thin as you can’t afford to eat two BIG MAC’s for
>>>>>>>>>> lunch, and it will stop those Obese kids from packing down to much
>>>>>>>>>> unhealthy foods.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The poor eat more rice, beans, cereal, Monsanto corn® and potatoes
>>>>>>>>> when things get tough, not salads
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrong again, failed Xian racist pig thief.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Corn and cereal are getting to be too expensive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steak is more….
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We haven’t eaten a steak in over a year!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We used to eat Delmonico (rib eye) steak every weekend but not no moe
>>>>>> thanks to Ben Bernanke (the Fed), quantitative easing and the moronic
>>>>>> idea of flooding the economy with printed/electronic money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mmm…mmm…mmm…oh for the days of Bush
>>>>>
>>>>> And Obama borrowing trillions of dollars that you will have to pay back
>>>>> at some point.
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s like Obama is as broke as you, but he refuses to stop buying steak
>>>>> and ice cream. At some point your credit card will be asking for their
>>>>> payment and you’ll have run it up with no money left to pay it.
>>>>
>>>> I’d love to put a CORE M4 Carbine
>>>> (http://www.core15rifles.com/index.php)
>>>> on the credit card but I know with interest it’ll cost me ever so much
>>>> moe.
>>>>
>>>> They’re made in Ocala, Florida and sold through Shoot Straight. I may
>>>> go to the Orlange County Gun Show on the 14th and 15th. I may find a
>>>> used one for cash.
>>>
>>> A common theme in Liberalism is that they have NO self control.
>>>
>>> That’s why “you can wait to pay for your goodies” and the Liberals like
>>> OzBama want the goodies and want it now and can’t grasp the concept of
>>> waiting until they have the ability to get things without debt.
>>>
>>> http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/current-tax-receipts
>>> http://visualizingeconomics.com/
>>>
>>> The 30 year average says that the USA takes in 18.2% of GDP and no
>>> matter the income tax being 28% or 98% tax receipts to the TREASURY
>>> seems to live between 15% to 20% of GDP so raising rates by 70% will
>>> gain nothing and likely just slow the economy enough to lower tax receipts.
>>>
>>> Looking at 1945-1954 which were the years of highest income tax rates we
>>> see the percent of GDP was down as low as 14.4% which makes it look like
>>> high tax rates don’t produce high tax receipts for the TREASURY.
>>>
>>> On the other hand if you look at low economic times, they correlate with
>>> low tax receipts taken in by the TREASURY. SO the best way to increase
>>> income to the TREASURY and to have money for government to spend is to
>>> keep taxes at the lowest amount possible… without crashing the system.
>>> But the Liberals greed prevents them from understanding or implementing
>>> what graphs show to be the truth.
>>>
>>> The problem isn’t taxing more, that just won’t happen because a high tax
>>> is anti income to Treasury. SO it has to be controlling the Liberals
>>> insatiable urge to waste money that they don’t have.
>>
>> Very true
>>
>> Lowering tax rates creates an environment in which business owners
>> plan, expand, order, resulting in increased economic activity.
>>
>> Libs will never get it because of their greed for other peoples money.
>
> So, the Bush Tax Cuts failed.
>
> RT

What failed was Progressives plans to redistribute “RISK” and the whole
housing market collapsed thanks to their plans that were implemented by
coercion of government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac.

http://outsourcenews.net/j-news/content/view/212/126/
time stamp 5:00

Gasoline up 100% under Obama

admin — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 22:33:50 +0000

On 4/2/2011 3:46 PM, CB wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 11:29:27 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> @&*$?%Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/2/2011 6:44 AM, CB wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 03:13:46 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>> @&*$?%Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/1/2011 8:38 PM, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2011 6:12 PM, CB wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:27:31 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>>>> @&*$?%Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/1/2011 12:53 AM, Foo Fighter wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article @&*$?%news.datemas.de>,
>>>>>>>> Lamont Cranston @&*$?%FogYourMind.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2011 5:40 PM, Kulin Remailer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Gasoline up 100% under Obama
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “You lie!” It’s less than what it was under “Da Bush.”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well. it’s a great tool to get people to conserve. I say $5 should
>>>>>>>> really motivate us. Saves the Earth!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It will also make you thin as you can’t afford to eat two BIG MAC’s for
>>>>>>> lunch, and it will stop those Obese kids from packing down to much
>>>>>>> unhealthy foods.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The poor eat more rice, beans, cereal, Monsanto corn® and potatoes
>>>>>> when things get tough, not salads
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrong again, failed Xian racist pig thief.
>>>>>
>>>>> Corn and cereal are getting to be too expensive.
>>>>
>>>> Steak is more….
>>>
>>> We haven’t eaten a steak in over a year!
>>>
>>> We used to eat Delmonico (rib eye) steak every weekend but not no moe
>>> thanks to Ben Bernanke (the Fed), quantitative easing and the moronic
>>> idea of flooding the economy with printed/electronic money.
>>>
>>> mmm…mmm…mmm…oh for the days of Bush
>>
>>
>> And Obama borrowing trillions of dollars that you will have to pay back
>> at some point.
>>
>> It’s like Obama is as broke as you, but he refuses to stop buying steak
>> and ice cream. At some point your credit card will be asking for their
>> payment and you’ll have run it up with no money left to pay it.
>
> I’d love to put a CORE M4 Carbine
> (http://www.core15rifles.com/index.php)
> on the credit card but I know with interest it’ll cost me ever so much
> moe.
>
> They’re made in Ocala, Florida and sold through Shoot Straight. I may
> go to the Orlange County Gun Show on the 14th and 15th. I may find a
> used one for cash.

A common theme in Liberalism is that they have NO self control.

That’s why “you can wait to pay for your goodies” and the Liberals like
OzBama want the goodies and want it now and can’t grasp the concept of
waiting until they have the ability to get things without debt.

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/current-tax-receipts
http://visualizingeconomics.com/

The 30 year average says that the USA takes in 18.2% of GDP and no
matter the income tax being 28% or 98% tax receipts to the TREASURY
seems to live between 15% to 20% of GDP so raising rates by 70% will
gain nothing and likely just slow the economy enough to lower tax receipts.

Looking at 1945-1954 which were the years of highest income tax rates we
see the percent of GDP was down as low as 14.4% which makes it look like
high tax rates don’t produce high tax receipts for the TREASURY.

On the other hand if you look at low economic times, they correlate with
low tax receipts taken in by the TREASURY. SO the best way to increase
income to the TREASURY and to have money for government to spend is to
keep taxes at the lowest amount possible… without crashing the system.
But the Liberals greed prevents them from understanding or implementing
what graphs show to be the truth.

The problem isn’t taxing more, that just won’t happen because a high tax
is anti income to Treasury. SO it has to be controlling the Liberals
insatiable urge to waste money that they don’t have.

National debt 14.2 trillion and increasing at over 4 billion a day!

admin — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:50:12 +0000

On 3/26/2011 4:28 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “wy” wrote in message
> news:05c332bb-4f94-4a6c-bec0-af6ceb3e2b62 @&*$?%o30g2000pra.googlegroups.com…
>> On Mar 26, 4:04 pm, John Smith wrote:
>>> On 3/26/2011 12:47 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>>>
>>> > …
>>> > Who are going to shoot?
>>> > The debt is owned primarily by Americans.
>>>
>>> > What a dumbass na ve idea!
>>>
>>> > You have proved that you belong in the Bozo Bin!
>>>
>>> Actually, the debt is owed by banksters and the fed who have printed
>>> money on promises to deliver something of value at a later date, knowing
>>> full well this would never happen.
>>>
>>> I really don’t owe any portion of the $45,000 they have me listed for,
>>> neither do any of my children, or their young children!
>>
>> Yet you have accepted all the services like rebuilding infrastructure,
>> defense, whatever government programs you may’ve taken advantage of
>> either knowingly or unknowingly and, of course, social security and
>> medicare and medicaid should you get there if you haven’t already.
>> Nothing’s free in the land of the free.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I say, “Let’s pay our debt in bullets!”
>>
>> Bullets only go so far, then you’re out of them, and with no money to
>> pay for more, America gets to be out of luck.
>>
>>>
>>> And, as to your question, “Who are [you] going to shoot?” I’d reply,
>>> “Anyone coming to collect on the fictitious debt!”
>>
>> Good luck if you think you can hold up against some bazookas or even
>> be functional after a dozen tear gas grenades have been thrown through
>> your windows.
>>
>> It’s your simplistic nonsense that’ll only end up seeing you dead
>> before your time. Which wouldn’t be a bad thing.
>>
>>
>>
>
> The solution is simple….but no one will face it.
>
> 1. A wealth tax
> 2. A truly progressive income tax
>
> In other words tax where the money is.
>

Just where is the money, is it in the IQ or in the education or the
buildings or the Song lyrics? Some people have an education that has
“value” how will you tax that? Some people have a talent that is of
value, how will you tax that when they choose to not create a lyric? Or
they create a Lyric and sing it for a meal or a woman that has a talent
for sex that rides in fine cars and eats fine foods, how will you tax
that asset? If you tax a car or a house or gold or cash as an
asset(money) how will you be equal and tax these other assets that
can’t be confiscated? Why tax only some people and NOT others?

Your system lacks the “FAIR” part of what you are trying to achieve.
These people with intangible assets from God can’t be taxed on their wealth.

> No use taxing poor people who have little money…they spend it all
> anyway contributing to the GDP
> Rich people do not.
>

Explain where the rich hide money so that it contributes zero to GDP.

It is Government and government employees that add zero to GDP, they
consume GDP.

> It’s time to pay the piper for the excesses that started with Republican
> St Reagan, continued under HW Bush, and nearly finished us off with the
> incompetent bush,jr.

It’s time to get rid of the Progressives yoke of oppression on the
capitalist markets and the people and go back to creating wealth.

30 years the rich have gotten their way in everything and the public is figuring all of this out:What we’re seeing is the top 1% is winning in international markets/winning in the bailouts/winning in government favors /winning in tax cuts

admin — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:56:13 +0000

On 3/18/2011 11:17 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Mar 18, 1:31 am, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>> On 3/18/2011 2:19 AM, ByeStander wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:37:10 -0400, Larry Hewitt
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 3/17/2011 1:34 AM, ByeStander wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:56:33 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> 30 years the rich have gotten their way in everything and the public
>>>>>> is figuring all of this out:What we’re seeing is the top 1% is winning
>>>>>> in international markets/winning in the bailouts/winning in government
>>>>>> favors /winning in tax cuts/It’s win-win-win
>>
>>>>> Do you think, as Obama’s father proposed, that the rich should be
>>>>> taxed at 100% ?
>>
>>>> Nah, let then keep something.
>>
>>>> 98% is high enough.
>>
>>> Gosh, the Repubs just seem so stupid, heh? They don’t realize the
>>> Utopia that could be had by all if they just agreed to tax the rich.

If they taxed the rich and took 99% or 100% of all money earned over
$1Million dollars then people/corporations would quit earning when they
hit $1Million, then send all non essential employees on a vacation. That
would limit the GDP to less than $300Million dollars since there are
only 300 million people and or businesses in the Nation.

How many dollars could unions steal from taxpayers then?

The Socialists would cut their own throats?

Republican Arizona Is No. 2 In Poverty And A Gun Infested, Crime Ridden Shit Hole Full Of Right Wing White Trash – Is This The Future Of America Under The Republican Fascists?

admin — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:16:50 +0000

On 1/23/2011 7:20 PM, J&*$?%a wrote:
> http://www.frp.no/The+Norwegian+energy+sector+needs+clarity.d25-TwZrG0Q.ips
>
> by the way, not 100% of Norway’s energy industry is controlled by the
> government.
>
> “Ranger” wrote in message
> news:f60c6157-fec9-41c7-9ad6-96f9a508d45c @&*$?%j7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com…
>
> On Jan 22, 9:12 pm, Ranger wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 9:09 pm, Ranger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 22, 8:31 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jan 22, 9:55 am, Republicans Hate America
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > In Norway Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism:Norway has more entrepreneurs
>> > > per capita than the United States:there is no statistical evidence to
>> > > prove that low taxes result in economic prosperity:)low tax rat holes
>> > > like texas/estonia are floundering in debt and unemployment
>>
>> > Norway enjoys one of the top 3 health care systems in the world, but
>> > still requires a minimum (income tested) payment for health care to
>> > keep people from abusing the system. It maxes out at $1500 a year
>> > for even the richest. My friend is a physician outside of Oslo and
>> > makes far less than his colleagues in Canada or the US, taxes are
>> > higher but there are few who complain about the “cradle to grave”
>> > social safety net there.
>>
>> > However, Norway rates 6th overall in the world for GDP per capita,
>> > while the USA rates 11th.
>>
>> > The US rates well down from Norway in health care and everyone is
>> > covered.
>>
>> > Norway also has vast natural gas wealth but exports most of it because
>> > they have a wealth of geothermal energy. And unlike the USA or
>> > Canada, one a net importer the other a net exporter of energy, the
>> > resources are owned by the tax payer and treated better for the
>> > benefit of the Norwegians than in Canada, where royalties are paid to
>> > multinationals. A great part of Norway’s robust economy is because
>> > they look out for the people, and they’re the taxpayers.
>>
>> Sorry for the repeat post. It appears that it didn’t go to the
>> original groups.
>>
>> On Jan 22, 8:31 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 22, 9:55 am, Republicans Hate America
>> > wrote:
>> > In Norway Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism:Norway has more entrepreneurs
>> > per capita than the United States:there is no statistical evidence to
>> > prove that low taxes result in economic prosperity:)low tax rat holes
>> > like texas/estonia are floundering in debt and unemployment
>>
>> Norway enjoys one of the top 3 health care systems in the world, but
>> still requires a minimum (income tested) payment for health care to
>> keep people from abusing the system. It maxes out at $1500 a year
>> for even the richest. My friend is a physician outside of Oslo and
>> makes far less than his colleagues in Canada or the US, taxes are
>> higher but there are few who complain about the “cradle to grave”
>> social safety net there.
>>
>> However, Norway rates 6th overall in the world for GDP per capita,
>> while the USA rates 11th.
>>
>> The US rates well down from Norway in health care and everyone is
>> covered.
>>
>> Norway also has vast natural gas wealth but exports most of it because
>> they have a wealth of geothermal energy. And unlike the USA or
>> Canada, one a net importer the other a net exporter of energy, the
>> resources are owned by the tax payer and treated better for the
>> benefit of the Norwegians than in Canada, where royalties are paid to
>> multinationals. A great part of Norway’s robust economy is because
>> they look out for the people, and they’re the taxpayers.
>
> What is also a bit wacky is how Norway’s national energy corporation
> has invested heavily in the Canada oil sands project.

So you have Bureaucrats investing the peoples money and future in
venture capitalism, that’s not just Socialist it’s insanity.

Government is hardly capable of making laws to protect its citizens
rights, they always end up stealing the rights. But to think they are
NOW business savvy is plumb stupid. They can’t invest any better than
they protected your individual rights.

A shrewd
> capitalist move. And the profits don’t go to Gulf Oil or Exxon, they
> go to the people of Norway.

How ‘Bout That Vision of The Visionary Gipper?

admin — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 02:33:58 +0000

On 1/4/2011 9:25 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
> Thing is, the Gipster never even supported free marketry. The entire
> thing was a complete scam, a 2 bit-40 trillion dollar scam that could
> easily be exposed by Toto the dog.
>
> www.bretcahill.com
>

Actually he was light years ahead of you…. but just not as committed
as some.

>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Why-Baby-Boomers-Are-Bummed-usnews-1665…
>>
>> ronald reagans legacy:the looting of america:Reagan-era legislative
>> changes essentially ended New Deal restrictions on mortgage
>> lending:Government is the problem, the magic of the marketplace must
>> be set free:the precautionary rules were scrapped
>>
>> http://www.journal-news.com/opinion/columnists/paul-krugman-this-rece…
>>
>> Paul Krugman: This recession is Reagan’s legacy
>> By Paul Krugman
>> Updated 2:12 PM Tuesday, June 2, 2009
>> “This bill is the most important legislation for financial
>> institutions in the last 50 years. It provides a long-term solution
>> for troubled thrift institutions. … All in all, I think we hit the
>> jackpot.”
>> So declared Ronald Reagan in 1982, as he signed the Garn-St. Germain
>> Depository Institutions Act.
>> He was, as it happened, wrong about solving the problems of the
>> thrifts. On the contrary, the bill turned the modest-sized troubles of
>> savings-and-loan institutions into an utter catastrophe. But he was
>> right about the legislation’s significance. And as for that jackpot —
>> well, it finally came more than 25 years later, in the form of the
>> worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
>> For the more one looks into the origins of the current disaster, the
>> clearer it becomes that the key wrong turn — the turn that made crisis
>> inevitable — took place in the early 1980s, during the Reagan years.
>> Attacks on Reaganomics usually focus on rising inequality and fiscal
>> irresponsibility. Indeed, Reagan ushered in an era in which a small
>> minority grew vastly rich, while working families saw only meager
>> gains. He also broke with long-standing rules of fiscal prudence.
>> On the latter point: Traditionally, the U.S. government ran
>> significant budget deficits only in times of war or economic
>> emergency. Federal debt as a percentage of GDP fell steadily from the
>> end of World War II until 1980. But indebtedness began rising under
>> Reagan; it fell again in the Clinton years, but resumed its rise under
>> the Bush administration, leaving us ill prepared for the emergency now
>> upon us.
>> The increase in public debt was, however, dwarfed by the rise in
>> private debt, made possible by financial deregulation. The change in
>> America’s financial rules was Reagan’s biggest legacy. And it’s the
>> gift that keeps on taking.
>> The immediate effect of Garn-St. Germain, as I said, was to turn the
>> thrifts from a problem into a catastrophe. The S&L crisis has been
>> written out of the Reagan hagiography, but the fact is that
>> deregulation in effect gave the industry — whose deposits were
>> federally insured — a license to gamble with taxpayers’ money, at
>> best, or simply to loot it, at worst. By the time the government
>> closed the books on the affair, taxpayers had lost $130 billion, back
>> when that was a lot of money.
>> But there was also a longer-term effect. Reagan-era legislative
>> changes essentially ended New Deal restrictions on mortgage lending —
>> restrictions that, in particular, limited the ability of families to
>> buy homes without putting a significant amount of money down.
>> These restrictions were put in place in the 1930s by political leaders
>> who had just experienced a terrible financial crisis, and were trying
>> to prevent another. But by 1980 the memory of the Depression had
>> faded. Government, declared Reagan, is the problem, not the solution;
>> the magic of the marketplace must be set free. And so the
>> precautionary rules were scrapped.
>> Together with looser lending standards for other kinds of consumer
>> credit, this led to a radical change in American behavior.
>> We weren’t always a nation of big debts and low savings: in the 1970s
>> Americans saved almost 10 percent of their income, slightly more than
>> in the 1960s. It was only after the Reagan deregulation that thrift
>> gradually disappeared from the American way of life, culminating in
>> the near-zero savings rate that prevailed on the eve of the great
>> crisis. Household debt was only 60 percent of income when Reagan took
>> office, about the same as it was during the Kennedy administration. By
>> 2007 it was up to 119 percent.
>> All this, we were assured, was a good thing: sure, Americans were
>> piling up debt, and they weren’t putting aside any of their income,
>> but their finances looked fine once you took into account the rising
>> values of their houses and their stock portfolios. Oops.
>> Now, the proximate causes of today’s economic crisis lie in events
>> that took place long after Reagan left office — in the global savings
>> glut created by surpluses in China and elsewhere, and in the giant
>> housing bubble that savings glut helped inflate.
>> But it was the explosion of debt over the previous quarter-century
>> that made the U.S. economy so vulnerable. Overstretched borrowers were
>> bound to start defaulting in large numbers once the housing bubble
>> burst and unemployment began to rise.
>> These defaults in turn wreaked havoc with a financial system that —
>> also mainly thanks to Reagan-era deregulation — took on too much risk
>> with too little capital.
>> There’s plenty of blame to go around these days. But the prime
>> villains behind the mess we’re in were Reagan and his circle of
>> advisers — men who forgot the lessons of America’s last great
>> financial crisis, and condemned the rest of us to repeat it.
>>
>> Paul Krugman writes for the New York Times.
>

From Hell’s heart, I stab at thee

admin — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 18:02:49 +0000

On 11/3/2010 1:47 PM, dave wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 11/3/2010 9:14 AM, dave wrote:
>
>>> Unless we begin devoting at least 20% of our GDP immediately to climate
>>> change mitigation, we shall not survive.
>>
>>
>> Build your coffin today….
>>
>
> You coffin is my coffin, Queequeg.

; From Hell’s heart, I stab at thee;

OutSourcedNews-Group » GDP

The more government grows and borrows and the more interest we pay, the less of a standard of living you will enjoy.

#USA set to devalue dollar

Riots in America?

GDP = C + I + G + ( X – M )

NEW IMPROVED OBAMA SOCIALIST SUPER-SIZED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT….

The more government grows and borrows and the more interest we pay, the less of a standard of living you will enjoy.

Federal tax receipts are lowest they have been since 1950. – 1 attachment

Disasters

Obama has accomplished nothing, the economy is still collapsing.

This graph tells you that 58.5% of working age Americans have had jobs for the last 2 years

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

If you know you’re supporting totalitarians then you’re scum and if you don’t know it you’re an idiot.

If you know your supporting totalitarians then you’re scum and if you don’t know it you’re an idiot.

markets are not self policing:they are prone tomanipulationthencrash:thecommoditybubbles:Copperis piling up in bondedwarehousesnotbecause theowners planto use it tomake wire/but becausespeculatorsaresitting on itlike gold

Create an Income TAX amendment says that the Federal Income tax canNOT be raised until ALL deficit spending is paid off.

Create an Income TAX amendment says that the Federal Income tax can NOT be raised until ALL deficit spending is paid off.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

“below that recorded last year but still higher (in percentage,terms) than any deficit between 1947 and 2008″

Where did ALL these banks get ALL this excessive money to loan?,,It’smyunderstandingthat the Federal Reserve sets MONEY POLICY.

MMMMMmmmmm MMMmmmmmmm MMMMMMmmmmmm… Barack Hussein Obama.

It is a FEDERAL PROBLEM NOT A NATIONAL PROBLEM.

What is bad is taxes as punishment and taxes that are excessive, the taxes themselves are benign but become a problem when Liberalism is applied to the tax code.

Obama is a Constitutional scholar?

More Lies About Gas Prices In Canada And Its Superior Economy

All I did by “giving” you that $10.00 was to make you my bitch. Did the government make you their bitch?

Maybe they need a spreadsheet of lies so they can track their last lies and try harder NOT to contradict their past lies with the NEW lies.

government spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?

government spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?

government spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?

government spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?

You can screw the vultures that want to pick your bones clean….

The bankruptcy courts will decide which path to follow in the near future….

If you work for a living you pay the highest taxes! Romney Says His Effective Tax Rate Is ‘Probably’ 15%

US GDP Revised Down 50 % last Quarter

Taxing the 1%

Taxing the 1%

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 94%.

The government is a parasite that is consuming it’s host.

The government is a parasite that is consuming it’s host.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 94%.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 94%.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 94%.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 94%.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

Will more tax revenue improve quality of life for the 99%?

Will more tax revenue improve quality of life for the 99%?

*What will live, won’t be Capitalist America*

Will more tax revenue improve quality of life for the 99%?

Will more tax revenue improve quality of life for the 99%?

Urban Wealth, Rural Poverty

The glass ceiling for taxes creating more income into the treasury is apparently 18% of GDP

Capitalism is finally collapsing but there’s hope

Dear Mr. President,

Most Climate Science Data & Modeling Isn’t Very Exotic

you want to tax away $4.7 trillion dollars of the $15 trillion GDP

If Anthony Weiner isn’t going to live up to his MARRIAGE vows then he also won’t live up to his OATH OF OFFICE.

If Anthony Weiner isn’t going to live up to his MARRIAGE vows then he also won’t live up to his OATH OF OFFICE.

If Anthony Weiner isn’t going to live up to his MARRIAGE vows then he also won’t live up to his OATH OF OFFICE.

If Anthony Weiner isn’t going to live up to his MARRIAGE vows then he also won’t live up to his OATH OF OFFICE.

All you need is an FD:GDP:1934:10.9 %:1935:8.9 %:1936:13.0 %:1937:5.1%:By 1936 the U.S. economy had regained the ground it lost during the devastating 1929-33 period:1937 FDR listened to conservatives/balanced the budget:the economy slipped

Obama Voters Forced to Sell Soda Cans for Food Money

Sign the Christian Coalition of America’s Petition for the Repeal of ObamaCare

Sign the Christian Coalition of America’s Petition for the Repeal of ObamaCare

Sign the Christian Coalition of America’s Petition for the Repeal of ObamaCare

Sign the Christian Coalition of America’s Petition for the Repeal of ObamaCare

Sign the Christian Coalition of America’s Petition for the Repeal of ObamaCare

the faint echo of a speech Lenin gave in an icy square in Moscow 100 years ago

What will live, won’t be Capitalist America