The 1%ers want you to believe that they work harder than anyone else, but the real question they should be asked is - "What sacrifice have you or any member of your family made on behalf of your country?"
I would love to see a 90% tax on any individual making a billion dollars or more a year. I'm not anti rich but I am anti money hoarding, tax dodging, and legislative manipulating country destroying fool. Pay your fair share!
DUH...and starting 2 wars costing Trillions and paying for them with tax cuts to the rich is the other choice wingers and teavangelicals love the second choice
The only reason the American economy is stalled is because the GOTP kicks the leg from under it, every time the economy begins to recover in the name of cutting the deficit
Because under current tax rates, there's no reason for the 1% to not continue to pay themselves hundreds of times what the average family earns, even if some of the loopholes go away.
The reason we had more equality of income back in the 1950's through the 1970's is that the 1% couldn't keep the money they gave themselves. When high earner's income went into the 70% margin rate (or the 91% rate under Ike), they were simply paying more taxes. No board of directors would okay increases in CEO wages because most of it would go to the IRS. Cap gains rates were also higher. Paying yourself a big salary or bonus was worthless if you couldn't keep it.
Its amazing how there is always money for the "defense" budget as well as intelligence, but the GOP always looks for cuts to SS, as well as opposing food stamps, an increase in the minimum wage, & on & on.
Republicans are always the biggest spenders when they have control of the Federal Government; the spend tens of billions in corporate welfare by borrowing the money from China to do it.
The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.
"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."
"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy." Warren Buffett
"The thing that's really shocking is that the Republican response to the problem is to call for increased welfare spending. From a free-market perspective, businesses should compete without subsidies," Unz said. "If they can't compete, then maybe they should go out of business." Ron Unz, a Silicon Valley millionaire and registered Republican who once ran for California governor
Hanauer said he doesn't consider himself a "job creator." If no one can afford to buy what he's selling, the jobs his companies create will evaporate, he reasons. In his view, what the nation needs is more money in the hands of regular consumers.
"A higher minimum wage is a very simple and elegant solution to the death spiral of falling demand that is the signature feature of our economy,"
Leo Hindery Jr., the New York City media and investing mogul, is one of hundreds of wealthy people directly asking Congress to raise their taxes as a member of Patriotic Millionaires.
The 66-year-old argues that giving rich people tax breaks makes no economic sense because people like him don't put their extra dollars back into the economy.
"Do you think I don't own every piece of clothing, every automobile? I already have it. You spend money. Rich people just get richer," he told the AP.
Hindery credits his Jesuit upbringing with giving him the tools to look beyond his own economic advantages.
"How can we believe in the American dream when 10 percent of the people have half the nation's income? It's immoral, I think it's unethical, but I also think that it's bad economics,"..."The only people who can take exception to this argument are people who want to get super rich and don't care what happens to the nation as a whole."
CONservatives who are against welfare because it "creates dependence on the Government" SHOULD be in favor of an increased minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the point that full-time employees do not NEED government assistance would result in a MASSIVE reduction of the people on Gov't aide
Raising the minimum wage doesn't kill jobs--and history is all the evidence you need to prove it. Since we have raised the federal minimum wage almost a dozen times since 1938, there is plenty of data. There is also plenty of data since the federal government began allowing states to institute their own higher minimum wages--and plenty of data comparing neighboring states with different minimum wages.
If there WERE any significant job killing because of raising the minimum wage, the evidence barely shows it. There CAN be immediate and small decreases in employment after the minimum wage is increased...but that effect almost always disappears within a year or two.
So at worst there is a negligible effect on unemployment...and at best there is no effect on unemployment and millions of people are lifted out of poverty.
Again, the GOTP effort to protect the rich and Big Business fails America.
You sound like you know what you are talking about. I will stay true to my southern roots and oppose you for that reason. Seriously, my smart friends may like what you say though.
-3,617,OOO Jobs lost in 2008 -3,847,OOO Jobs lost in first half of 2009!
-7,464,OOO Jobs lost in 18 months under Bush's policies. ----------------- 1,022,OOO Jobs added in 2010 2,165,OOO Jobs added in 2011 2,193,OOO Jobs added in 2012 2,186,OOO Jobs added in 2013
+7,566,000 Jobs added in 48 months under Obama's policies in spite of GOP obstructionism.
"If you don't want your tax dollars to help the poor, then stop saying that you want a country based on Christian Values, because you don't." Jimmy Carter
Every Republican administration in memory has created record deficits - passing that money along to the wealthy, where it remains in the bank accounts and out of the economy.
The Republican sham of lower taxes and less regulation doesn't help anyone but the richest Americans and Big Business and kill jobs and opportunity for almost everyone, especially in the middle class and poor.
Gerrymandering has successfully parsed critical thought from their districts so this mindless form of government will continue as long as mindless people are sent to congress.
The right wing arguments against the War on Poverty always boil down to: See, these programs that we have underfunded or cut back or otherwise hobbled don't work now that we have broken them. So give more money to rich people!
ACA. "Here, let me show why this social program you like is so dysfunctional because we gutted funding for it, so now it should be stopped because obviously government doesn't work."
Companies like Walmart and McDonalds are the ones creating the “poverty trap”. While making record profits and their CEO’s making record salaries their employees need to supplement their income with using taxpayer funded anti-poverty programs ….AFDC, child tax credits, earned income credits, Section 8, school meals, Medicaid, WIC & home energy assistance to supplement income.
And as long as folks continue to whine about the "lazy" people who don't want to work, they are doing the bidding of the wealthy who want us to keep fighting among ourselves so that they can continue to screw us all. Maybe one of them has found a way to take their wealth with them after they die. That might explain this mentality of continuing the acquisition of wealth over all else.
Partly because that 50% is mythical. Counted amongst its numbers are senior citizens who have paid taxes their whole lives and students who are legally adults but have not yet entered the workforce. Yes, there are also people making very low incomes that pay no taxes. On the other hand, there are also massive corporations that don't either. The difference is that the "Flat Tax" is a symbolic gesture that has nothing to do with actual budget-balancing. The goal behind it is to just cut taxes for rich even more while increasing the tax burden faced by the poor, all the while very likely reducing government revenue.
The way things worked before the US essentially invented the middle class by implementing the progressive tax structure and the New Deal in the wake of the Great Depression, was a series of booms & busts. These sucked for the ordinary people, but were a fantastic way for the obscenely wealthy to garner more wealth.
Here's how it worked:
Choose a market segment and start investing heavily.
Create a bunch of noise around how that segment is growing.
Create investment tools that even the little guy can buy.
Whip the public into a buying frenzy. No one wants to be left behind in a market that has no place to go but "up."
When the bubble inflates to a point of your choosing, it's time to start the next bubble, strip your profits out via a massive sell off.
This happens to crash the market, reaming the little investors - but you don't care, because you just took all the money they'd invested.
Sock a bunch of your ill-gotten gains into an inheritance trust to be passed on to your children, then start investing the rest in another market segment. Pump that bubble, pop it, move on to the next.
To these avaricious slime-balls, "the economy" is a toy, not something on which they rely for survival. We're the only ones who get hurt when they crush it.
The jobs lost in the recession were lost BECAUSE of Republican Policies, lies and fallacies- Can we say Trickle Down (Voodoo!) Economics? Hell, even Dubya's Dad knew that stuff was, uh, Bunk!
Now they want you to believe them when they claim they know what's best for the rest of us?
Republicans talk about the deficit, but more than three quarters of the budget is basically social security, medicare, defense and debt service. the president touches anything and he gets criticized for that, too.
History has shown us that having more people able to afford the necessities of life IMPROVES the economy. The period of greatest wage equality between workers and management was also the period where this nation boomed, seeing unparalleled growth for ALL classes (yes, even for the very rich). In fact, the rich did better under policies that they are crying about now then they do under so-called job-creator policies
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
At its core, the Tea Party movement is rife with contradiction, incoherence and a willful contempt for facts or reason. It is but a parody of the legitimate movements for which American democracy has historically been held in such high regard. It is, in fact, the latest installment in quite another American tradition: the exploitation of frustrated, desperate, and susceptible people by monied interests and profiteers.
The CBO also found that increasing the minimum wage will help the middle class and working poor:
Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented.
Labor Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D., Iowa), one of the authors of the bill to raise the minimum wage to $10.10, defended the legislation.
“Since the first minimum wage was enacted more than 75 years ago, opponents have argued that a wage floor would cause job loss. But this is a myth,” said Mr. Harkin, adding that hundreds of experts back that finding. “More than 600 economists, including seven Nobel Prize laureates, recently affirmed the growing consensus that low-wage workers benefit from modest increases in the minimum wage without negative consequences for the low-wage job market.”
The US corporate business model has changed: It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management.. So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.
Tax Foundation Reveals Scant Link Between Taxes And Prosperity
Another day, another weird map from a libertarian group that seems designed to debunk libertarianism. Last time it was strange assertions about freedom, today it's the Tax Foundation explaining why there are no successful businesses in California or New York:
Now it would be a little silly to say that relatively high business tax rates are the cause of California and New York's success as the pillars of America's very successful high-tech, finance, and media industries. But this map seems to provide strong support for the hypothesis that policymakers seeking to create a prosperous local economy shouldn't sweat the business tax rate too much.
Their hatred for Obama has gone so deep that at time you wonder if Putin had invaded the US and taken over the WH the would not feel better..Take a deep breath put America first for a change.
A new state-by-state count of multimillionaires shows that some of the highest tax states created the most millionaires. The study, from UBS and Wealth-X, ranked states by their populations of people worth $30 million or more—presumably the most mobile part of the wealth chain and the most sensitive to taxes.
California was the top producer of multimillionaires over the past year, gaining more than 1,600 people worth $30 million or more. The state also has the nation's highest tax rate—13.3 percent—for people making $1 million or more.
If you check out the John Birch Society, you will find their goals and philosophy are about the same as The Tea Party...The only difference is, this is 2014 with a catchy name, and tons of money to influence people/elections
"On June 20, 1979, the Carter administration installed 32 panels designed to harvest the sun's rays and use them to heat water.
Here is what Carter predicted at the dedication ceremony: "In the year 2000 this solar water heater behind me, which is being dedicated today, will still be here supplying cheap, efficient energy…. A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people."
By 1986, [the WH panels had been removed and] the Reagan administration had gutted the research and development budgets for renewable energy at the then-fledgling U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and eliminated tax breaks for the deployment of wind turbines and solar technologies—recommitting the nation to reliance on cheap but polluting fossil fuels, often from foreign suppliers. "The Department of Energy has a multibillion-dollar budget, in excess of $10 billion," Reagan said during an election debate with Carter, justifying his opposition to the latter's energy policies. "It hasn't produced a quart of oil or a lump of coal or anything else in the line of energy."
So we have a whole series of new laws meant to address a non-existent problem, but whose implementation will severely limit the opportunity for a lot of people to exercise a basic Constitutional right. Wow
Why do the Republicans repeatedly go back to policies that have failed? Are they so bereft of ideas that the only thing they can do is look to the past?
Libertarianism is one of those things that sounds good when you read about it in high school, or maybe your first year of college. But once you are out in the real world for say, five, or even six entire minutes, you quickly realize it's a narcissistic, child-like ideology that doesn't actually work and has no basis in reality
This is not about the Koch Brothers, per se, it is about the corruptive influence of extreme consolidated wealth, which they happen to represent from the perspective of the Left, on Politics and Governance.
Big Money, it doesn’t matter whether it is from the Left or the Right, is drowning The People’s Voice out of our Representative Democracy, plain and simple
It seems that only those on the Left are concerned about this. Why? Do we cherish the idea of Democracy more than those on the Right?
How is it that so many on the Right, who practically worship the Founders of this, cannot see that this conflux of consolidated wealth and influence is EXACTLY what the Founders fought against?
History has proven through the centuries that the type of wealth/power consolidation we are seeing is rarely a good thing.
CONservative economic theories have never worked and never will. You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk.
The greatest failure in the Libertarian, Tea Party, and Republican Party philosophy is this absurd notion that getting rid of regulations and restrictions of government on business....people, human beings, will always do the right thing. There are currently very few regulations on burning coal in China....the result is a high-level emergency and health crisis that has the Chinese government scrambling to put together legislation that can be enforced BY GOVERNMENT.
Government also exists to take care of and protect its citizens against other citizens. Purist Randian philosophy is just the Law of the Jungle in a tie and a coat.
Every time I listen to the small-gummint wingnuts, I reminds me of my 8 year old when she says that rules like limits on candy and computer-time don't make sense.
Right. Because in America we don't pay taxes and vote on how that money is best spent for the country, everybody just pays for whatever services they need. It's not like I had to pay any taxes for a war I didn't support. You live in a country, not by yourself out in the woods. You don't like how taxes are spent, win an election
most people don't get to choose, they are indoctrinated from birth. Most people who actually make measured, well thought-out, rational decisions about faith as a conscious, cognizant adult don't usually switch faiths but abandon it entirely
Successful Americans didn't make their money themselves. They conducted business in an ordered society with roads and laws and a military that defends it from foreign invaders and they hired people. Nobody wants YOUR money, they want the share they contributed to it
The whole reason democracy was invented as a means to make the rich and powerful give up their stranglehold on wealth and power. Of course they don't believe in democracy, they see it is an upstart insurgency of the rabble upsetting the balance of nature where rich white males rule as they were meant to.
So this is still relevant but we're supposed to just forget about 9/11, the 08 crash, the tax cuts for the rich, going to war against the wrong country, selling the ports to the Arabs, etc, ad infiitum
That is the problem, conservatives very seldom tell you their intentions. They talk nuances "job creation" "deficit reduction", "Austerity", They just can not say it loud and proud: I WILL GIVE YOUR GOVERNMENT TO THE RICH AND POWERFUL, (because is unfair that The Middle Class make any money at all and corporations do not get to keep all of it) SO I CAN GIVE IT TO THOSE WHO ALREADY HAVE MOST OF THE MONEY FROM BUYING CONGRESSMEN AND DEREGULATING INDUSTRY.
NBC was owned by GE, a major military contractor. Rachel made constant disclosures about it any time she did stories about military contractors or the parent company.
Liberals are quite attuned to who everyone's corporate overlords are and how much control they exert.
How about being an INFORMED voter and actually doing some homework and seeing who actually fights AGAINST all this nonsense. If you vote against, say, Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders, YOU are part of the problem.
Making you think the whole government sucks was the EXACT goal of the minority of political terrorists who orchestrated this mess. Don't fall for it. Your government does great things when you pay attention.
If the GOP tanks, it will reemerge in another form rather quickly in this day and age I would think. In it's current state, it is rabid, a danger to itself and everyone else. The sooner it is put down the better it will be for everyone except the super-rich, including the rest of the world. And that's not hyperbole
Pick a crime! Any crime! Accuse him of something! "Violating the Constitution" how? What law did he break? Make something up like you usually do, but you still have to make something up! You can't just impeach him because he's not Republican.
You can't convict someone just because you don't like them. You can't arrest someone because you disagree with them. Impeachment is not a way to over-ride an election. You can't impeach someone just because THEY WON THE VOTE
Voter fraud means changing the results of an election dishonestly. Claiming there is enough *individual* voter fraud to justify disenfranchising a significant percentage of voters disingenuously alters election results far more than the incidence of individual voter fraud.
Yes, your side made it clear that you were going on strike against Democracy and the process of governing as defined by The Constitution as soon as you learned you didn't win the white house in 08. And all that intransigence and doing whatever you want despite the whole country opposing you keeps making you more popular doesn't it?
If you live in a media bubble that tells you everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and you're smart, you will get your ass handed to you the first time you step out of that bubble. Ask the Romney campaign.
1&2) From 1947 to 1973 – a period of just 26 years – inflation-adjusted median income in the United States more than doubled. But in the 31 years from 1973 to 2004, it rose only 22 percent. And, over the last decade, it actually declined. -
The last 40 years of conservative think tank legislation has killed the economy
Consumer Spending Will Not Save Our economy: Pay Fell 7% in Last Decade and Economists Say It Won’t Catch Up Before 2021; Even College Graduates See Salaries Slide
Americans’ incomes have dropped since 2000 and they aren’t expected to make up the lost ground before 2021, according to economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.
From 2000 to 2010, median income in the U.S. declined 7% after adjusting for inflation, according to Census data. That marks the worst 10-year performance in records going back to 1967.
Socialism does not mean what you think it does. It is not Soviet communism, it is a methodology to equitably share resources in society.
Couldn't possibly be the wage stagnation for 30+ years of Reaganomics tilting the playing field toward plutocracy as all the profits of increased productivity go upward to executives and insiders.
Maybe we should go back to the good old days when tax rates were high and the corporations save their tax money by reinvesting into their company instead of just pulling everything out.
Socialism! That's that word that your politicians use that it's so nasty. Socialism. Other places just call it sharing. It's a good thing! You just share and give some to the less fortunate. -Fred Eaglesmith
'People might consider the implications of applying any rules to economic activity. Do we have any right to tell a business how it can operate, hire or fire personnel, the products it sells and to whom?
Most of us in America were raised with the conviction that government has no right to intervene in the economy"
(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics
When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.
American School of Economics
Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:
protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders
Business does not create jobs. Jobs are created by consumer demand
Both private sector (individual) and public sector (collective) a business has no existence without the consumer needs and wants. It is the consumer that creates the jobs, and it is producers that fill them.
A business is simply a framework for a joint venture between a group of economic system participants to produce a product or service that is needed or in demand because of want by other economic system participants.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington
The institution of a leisure class acts to make the lower classes conservative by withdrawing from them as much as it may of the means of sustenance, and so reducing their consumption, and consequently their available energy, to such a point as to make them incapable of the effort required for the learning and adoption of new habits of thought.
Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) Ch.8, p.204
Conservatism, A Radical generally meant a man who thought he could somehow pull up the root without affecting the flower. A Conservative generally meant a man who wanted to conserve everything except his own reason for conserving anything.
G.K. Chesterton, in "The Evolution of Words and Meanings" in The Illustrated London News (3 July 1920).
IT'S A SCANDAL IT'S A SCANDAL, IT'S A SCANDAL, SCANDAL I TELL YOU,
SCANDAL,SCANDAL,SCANDAL!!!!!!!
No I don't know what, where, when or who but give Issa more time and there will be a scandal, there will be I know Obama did it, I know he did, Fox said so..
"The most intelligent, educated, and informed people are almost never Republicans
Hal Montereyradio
Think that headline is a little too strong? Well consider this: Only 6% of scientists are registered republicans. Or this: Only 7% of journalists are registered republicans. We can agree, can’t we, that becoming a scientist requires a remarkable dedication to scholarship, education, and to the truth? We can agree, can’t we, that nobody knows more about the working of our “democracy” than journalists? So, why have well over 90% of those who have followed a scientific or journalistic path rejected the Republican party? Could the answer be more obvious? The Republican war on science fought on behalf of the wealthiest and most powerful and the utter contempt which Congressional Republicans hold for the democratic process have completely alienated our brightest, most informed, and most curious."
What do you expect from people who lie, distort, and misrepresent everything they say because they have to, otherwise their bullsh-t would be obvious even to the stupid people that agree with them because they do not have a clue...
We have a political party and *news* channel that caters to people who live in Black-n-White World. Even though nearly all societies have some socialist aspects to them, Faux News and Republicans like to spotlight individual things and label them and anyone who supports them as "socialist."
Most of Faux News viewers are non-1%er retirees, which means they are lapping up most of the socialism the US offers its citizens: social security and Medicare.
Parrots repeat what they hear. The RW media doesn't profit from educating their listeners. They know the money is in saying outrageous things that fit their listeners ideology. The listeners want to be outraged. The RW media produces the outrageous material. Truth not required. It's a symbiotic relationship.
The most recent, single act of Socialism was instituted by Bush Jr. and Henry Paulson, when they transferred 1 trillion dollars to Wall Street. That transfer met every definition of socialism ever written.
The most recent, single act of Socialism was instituted by Bush Jr. and Henry Paulson, when they transferred 1 trillion dollars to Wall Street. That transfer met every definition of socialism ever written.
It really is quite laughable to hear people refer to Warren, Obama, and the Democrats in general as "far left" and/or "socialist." I think it is a point of view issue. The Republicans have been pulled so far to the extreme right by the Tea Party that, from their vantage point, just about ANYONE else seems like a leftist. How else do you explain Glenn Beck calling John McCain a "progressive?"
Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing By David Cay Johnston
The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.
George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."
The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."
James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort." Follow Newsweek
Get top stories emailed to you each day.
Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."
Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."
Look at these so called CONservative guru's, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck ( the three wise monkeys) you name it, everyone of them dropped out of college, too dumb possibly, but more likely too close minded to accept any other opinion or theory!!!
Many people I listen to who say they are conservatives don't have two cents to scratch their a**s with, and here's the funny part most of them don't even have health insurance, not because they choose not to have it, but because they can't afford it, or simply because they can't get it because of current state of health, and they still defend the system.......truly pathetic!!!
“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”
The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence. ' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-two-documents-everyon_b_169813.html
Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.
Alexander Hamilton was protectionism's first major advocate. George Washington, in his first Address to Congress, said 'A free people . . should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military supplies.' Thomas Jefferson made a similar statement in 1816, as did also James Madison in 1815, and James Monroe in 1822. Southern states objected after the 1820s, seeing its slave-labor workforce unsuitable for industrial work.
If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.
These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.
They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.
1%er Warns Fellow Plutocrats Neoliberalism Will Lead to Violent Class Revolution
Though Charles and David Koch may be grabbing the headlines promoting a 1% neo-feudal agenda, not everyone in the upper echelons of the American plutocracy is on board. Nick Hanauer, a super rich venture capitalist, recently wrote a piece condemning neoliberalism – often called “trickle-down economics” – saying the current economic system is not only unfair and causing resentment but counter-productive to a thriving middle class saying “These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base.”
The average tax rates for American households reached a historical low in 2009, according to a report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Indeed, federal taxes for American households averaged 17.4 percent in 2009, a historical low over the 1979 to 2009 period.
WEIRD, WASN'T THAT WHEN THE TP (BIRCHERS) WERE FORMED?
Libertarians are frauds and parasites but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving. Sadly their freedom isn't freedom, it is chaos and opens the door to a real loss of democracy.
They unwittingly use the protections, benefits and accomplishments government has to offer to create their fortunes, while pompously declaring they did it all on their own.
"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation." -- Thomas Jefferson; letter to James Madison (1785)
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC
Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law
Community Reinvestment Act, blamed for home market crash, didn't apply to the banks that did the most lending.
BANKSTER: Bob Davis, executive vice president of the American Bankers Association, which lobbies Congress to streamline community reinvestment rules, said "it just isn't credible" to blame the law CRA for the crisis.
"Institutions that are subject to CRA - that is, banks and savings asociations - were largely not involved in subprime lending," Davis said. "The bulk of the loans came through a channel that was not subject to CRA."
Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register
Banks used cheap capital to create a bubble. Their lending strategies fueled and fed off the housing bubble, and they did so using mortgage products whose performance was premised on continued growth of that bubble.
Yes, 6% of ALL loans 2004-2008 were done by CRA covered banks, NOT that CRA was the goal on anywhere near the 6%, but it's CRA that is the problem *shaking head*
Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."
Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.
NOW ABOUT THOSE BANKSTERS APPEARING ON TV AND BLAMING CRA? Yes, I know, AEI and right wingers created garbage to TRY to pin on CRA, lol
Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...
ReplyDelete"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis
ReplyDeleteThe 1%ers want you to believe that they work harder than anyone else, but the real question they should be asked is - "What sacrifice have you or any member of your family made on behalf of your country?"
ReplyDeleteI would love to see a 90% tax on any individual making a billion dollars or more a year. I'm not anti rich but I am anti money hoarding, tax dodging, and legislative manipulating country destroying fool. Pay your fair share!
ReplyDelete"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.
ReplyDeleteI wish I could live in fantasyland like the GOP. Sadly, I have to live with facts and reality.
ReplyDeleteNever in the history of this country have we started a war, let alone two wars and cut taxes. Until......................
ReplyDeleteDUH...and starting 2 wars costing Trillions and paying for them with tax cuts to the rich is the other choice wingers and teavangelicals love the second choice
DeleteThe only reason the American economy is stalled is because the GOTP kicks the leg from under it, every time the economy begins to recover in the name of cutting the deficit
ReplyDeleteBecause under current tax rates, there's no reason for the 1% to not continue to pay themselves hundreds of times what the average family earns, even if some of the loopholes go away.
ReplyDeleteThe reason we had more equality of income back in the 1950's through the 1970's is that the 1% couldn't keep the money they gave themselves. When high earner's income went into the 70% margin rate (or the 91% rate under Ike), they were simply paying more taxes. No board of directors would okay increases in CEO wages because most of it would go to the IRS. Cap gains rates were also higher. Paying yourself a big salary or bonus was worthless if you couldn't keep it.
Reagan created the recession began under HIM after his disastrous tax cuts.
ReplyDeletehttp://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM
supply side did not work under reagan nor bush.the worse recession happened under REAGAN not carter.sure he picked up the economy after he trashed it.
Republicans only seem to have one solution to any problem - make life harder for those on the bottom.
ReplyDeleteIts amazing how there is always money for the "defense" budget as well as intelligence, but the GOP always looks for cuts to SS, as well as opposing food stamps, an increase in the minimum wage, & on & on.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans are always the biggest spenders when they have control of the Federal Government; the spend tens of billions in corporate welfare by borrowing the money from China to do it.
ReplyDeleteGrove Norquist stating "I want to make government so small, I could drown it in a bathtub."
ReplyDeleteThat is the reason behind all these cuts and decreasing revenue.
The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.
ReplyDelete"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson
Unfettered Capitalism is not a good thing
ReplyDelete"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy." Warren Buffett
ReplyDelete"The thing that's really shocking is that the Republican response to the problem is to call for increased welfare spending. From a free-market perspective, businesses should compete without subsidies," Unz said. "If they can't compete, then maybe they should go out of business." Ron Unz, a Silicon Valley millionaire and registered Republican who once ran for California governor
ReplyDeleteSeattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer
ReplyDeleteHanauer said he doesn't consider himself a "job creator." If no one can afford to buy what he's selling, the jobs his companies create will evaporate, he reasons. In his view, what the nation needs is more money in the hands of regular consumers.
"A higher minimum wage is a very simple and elegant solution to the death spiral of falling demand that is the signature feature of our economy,"
Leo Hindery Jr., the New York City media and investing mogul, is one of hundreds of wealthy people directly asking Congress to raise their taxes as a member of Patriotic Millionaires.
ReplyDeleteThe 66-year-old argues that giving rich people tax breaks makes no economic sense because people like him don't put their extra dollars back into the economy.
"Do you think I don't own every piece of clothing, every automobile? I already have it. You spend money. Rich people just get richer," he told the AP.
Hindery credits his Jesuit upbringing with giving him the tools to look beyond his own economic advantages.
"How can we believe in the American dream when 10 percent of the people have half the nation's income? It's immoral, I think it's unethical, but I also think that it's bad economics,"..."The only people who can take exception to this argument are people who want to get super rich and don't care what happens to the nation as a whole."
CONservatives who are against welfare because it "creates dependence on the Government" SHOULD be in favor of an increased minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the point that full-time employees do not NEED government assistance would result in a MASSIVE reduction of the people on Gov't aide
ReplyDeleteCurrently, the government effectively subsidizes employers who pay low wages.
DeleteRaising the minimum wage doesn't kill jobs--and history is all the evidence you need to prove it. Since we have raised the federal minimum wage almost a dozen times since 1938, there is plenty of data. There is also plenty of data since the federal government began allowing states to institute their own higher minimum wages--and plenty of data comparing neighboring states with different minimum wages.
ReplyDeleteIf there WERE any significant job killing because of raising the minimum wage, the evidence barely shows it. There CAN be immediate and small decreases in employment after the minimum wage is increased...but that effect almost always disappears within a year or two.
So at worst there is a negligible effect on unemployment...and at best there is no effect on unemployment and millions of people are lifted out of poverty.
Again, the GOTP effort to protect the rich and Big Business fails America.
You sound like you know what you are talking about. I will stay true to my southern roots and oppose you for that reason. Seriously, my smart friends may like what you say though.
ReplyDeleteData per Bureau of Labor:
ReplyDelete-3,617,OOO Jobs lost in 2008
-3,847,OOO Jobs lost in first half of 2009!
-7,464,OOO Jobs lost in 18 months under Bush's policies.
-----------------
1,022,OOO Jobs added in 2010
2,165,OOO Jobs added in 2011
2,193,OOO Jobs added in 2012
2,186,OOO Jobs added in 2013
+7,566,000 Jobs added in 48 months under Obama's policies in spite of GOP obstructionism.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Examples of GOP blocking jobs bills:
2010 - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017896-503544.html
2011 - http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/21/us-usa-jobs-teachers-idUSTRE79K0D120111021
2012 - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57517160/senate-gop-blocks-veterans-jobs-bill/
"If you don't want your tax dollars to help the poor, then stop saying that you want a country based on Christian Values, because you don't." Jimmy Carter
ReplyDeleteThe only way the GOP gets people to vote Republican anymore is to tell them over and over again that the minorities are coming to take their stuff.
ReplyDeleteRepublican only legislate what hurts the middleclass.
ReplyDeleteEvery Republican administration in memory has created record deficits - passing that money along to the wealthy, where it remains in the bank accounts and out of the economy.
ReplyDeleteThe Republican sham of lower taxes and less regulation doesn't help anyone but the richest Americans and Big Business and kill jobs and opportunity for almost everyone, especially in the middle class and poor.
ReplyDeleteAs Bill Maher has observed, the GOPers are good at pushing a falsehood until it's accepted as conventional wisdom
ReplyDeleteThe GOPers' employment of boogeymen to frighten the uninitiated is quite remarkable but it's extremely cynical and condescending.
DeleteWe must get rid of the GOP in 2014.
ReplyDeleteThe GOP is a trainwreck.
DeleteGerrymandering has successfully parsed critical thought from their districts so this mindless form of government will continue as long as mindless people are sent to congress.
ReplyDeleteJust because the right will repeat a lie forever, doesn't mean that lie will ever produce facts.
ReplyDeleteThe right wing arguments against the War on Poverty always boil down to: See, these programs that we have underfunded or cut back or otherwise hobbled don't work now that we have broken them. So give more money to rich people!
ReplyDeleteACA.
Delete"Here, let me show why this social program you like is so dysfunctional because we gutted funding for it, so now it should be stopped because obviously government doesn't work."
Companies like Walmart and McDonalds are the ones creating the “poverty trap”. While making record profits and their CEO’s making record salaries their employees need to supplement their income with using taxpayer funded anti-poverty programs ….AFDC, child tax credits, earned income credits, Section 8, school meals, Medicaid, WIC & home energy assistance to supplement income.
ReplyDeleteAnd as long as folks continue to whine about the "lazy" people who don't want to work, they are doing the bidding of the wealthy who want us to keep fighting among ourselves so that they can continue to screw us all. Maybe one of them has found a way to take their wealth with them after they die. That might explain this mentality of continuing the acquisition of wealth over all else.
ReplyDeleteThe GOP does not help people unless they are a corporation.
ReplyDeleteTrue, rich white bankers and CEO's get the lion's share of govt handouts
ReplyDeletePartly because that 50% is mythical. Counted amongst its numbers are senior citizens who have paid taxes their whole lives and students who are legally adults but have not yet entered the workforce. Yes, there are also people making very low incomes that pay no taxes. On the other hand, there are also massive corporations that don't either. The difference is that the "Flat Tax" is a symbolic gesture that has nothing to do with actual budget-balancing. The goal behind it is to just cut taxes for rich even more while increasing the tax burden faced by the poor, all the while very likely reducing government revenue.
ReplyDeleteThe way things worked before the US essentially invented the middle class by implementing the progressive tax structure and the New Deal in the wake of the Great Depression, was a series of booms & busts. These sucked for the ordinary people, but were a fantastic way for the obscenely wealthy to garner more wealth.
ReplyDeleteHere's how it worked:
Choose a market segment and start investing heavily.
Create a bunch of noise around how that segment is growing.
Create investment tools that even the little guy can buy.
Whip the public into a buying frenzy. No one wants to be left behind in a market that has no place to go but "up."
When the bubble inflates to a point of your choosing, it's time to start the next bubble, strip your profits out via a massive sell off.
This happens to crash the market, reaming the little investors - but you don't care, because you just took all the money they'd invested.
Sock a bunch of your ill-gotten gains into an inheritance trust to be passed on to your children, then start investing the rest in another market segment. Pump that bubble, pop it, move on to the next.
To these avaricious slime-balls, "the economy" is a toy, not something on which they rely for survival. We're the only ones who get hurt when they crush it.
Fear is the only tool the GOP ever uses.
ReplyDeleteWhen was the last time they did (or tried to do) anything that benefited more than the top 2% of Americans.
Republicants also said that electing President Obama would kill jobs - Didn't quite work out that way.
ReplyDeleteThe jobs lost in the recession were lost BECAUSE of Republican Policies, lies and fallacies- Can we say Trickle Down (Voodoo!) Economics? Hell, even Dubya's Dad knew that stuff was, uh, Bunk!
ReplyDeleteNow they want you to believe them when they claim they know what's best for the rest of us?
Please don't bring facts into the conversation, this is the republican America
ReplyDelete"we will not let facts get in our way"
Republicans talk about the deficit, but more than three quarters of the budget is basically social security, medicare, defense and debt service. the president touches anything and he gets criticized for that, too.
ReplyDeleteHistory has shown us that having more people able to afford the necessities of life IMPROVES the economy.
ReplyDeleteThe period of greatest wage equality between workers and management was also the period where this nation boomed, seeing unparalleled growth for ALL classes (yes, even for the very rich). In fact, the rich did better under policies that they are crying about now then they do under so-called job-creator policies
minimum wage has been increased over 25 times since the 1930's, and nobody ever noticed any negative effect afterward.
ReplyDeletePresident Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteAmong the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/04/30/bush-claims-he-has-author_n_20085.html
At its core, the Tea Party movement is rife with contradiction, incoherence and a willful contempt for facts or reason. It is but a parody of the legitimate movements for which American democracy has historically been held in such high regard. It is, in fact, the latest installment in quite another American tradition: the exploitation of frustrated, desperate, and susceptible people by monied interests and profiteers.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-whatley/the-tea-party-movement-is_b_455883.html
You know CONservative economics is a failure when they have to keep reminding us how much better our poor is than the poor in 3rd world countries!
ReplyDeleteHealthcare is 37th in the world,,,one step above Somalia. Go figure.
Every time momentum builds for lifting wages, conservative ideologues say it will cost jobs. Every time, they’ve been dead wrong,
ReplyDeleteThe CBO also found that increasing the minimum wage will help the middle class and working poor:
ReplyDeleteMany more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented.
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/02/18/cbo-report-destroys-republican-argument-raising-minimum-wage.html
Labor Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D., Iowa), one of the authors of the bill to raise the minimum wage to $10.10, defended the legislation.
ReplyDelete“Since the first minimum wage was enacted more than 75 years ago, opponents have argued that a wage floor would cause job loss. But this is a myth,” said Mr. Harkin, adding that hundreds of experts back that finding. “More than 600 economists, including seven Nobel Prize laureates, recently affirmed the growing consensus that low-wage workers benefit from modest increases in the minimum wage without negative consequences for the low-wage job market.”
The US corporate business model has changed: It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management.. So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.
ReplyDelete"I want my freedom back."
ReplyDeleteRWers love to use ad nauseam words and phrases that have nothing to do with veracity or reality. Phrases to wind up the lowest common denominator.
Texas Turns Out to Be Not So Miraculous After All
ReplyDeletehttp://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/03/texas-turns-out-be-not-so-miraculous-after-all
Oops: The Texas Miracle That Isn’t
DeleteConservatives say the Lone Star state’s recent record of growth validates their economic agenda. That record crumbles upon inspection.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_may_2014/features/oops_the_texas_miracle_that_is049289.php?page=all
Tax Foundation Reveals Scant Link Between Taxes And Prosperity
ReplyDeleteAnother day, another weird map from a libertarian group that seems designed to debunk libertarianism. Last time it was strange assertions about freedom, today it's the Tax Foundation explaining why there are no successful businesses in California or New York:
Now it would be a little silly to say that relatively high business tax rates are the cause of California and New York's success as the pillars of America's very successful high-tech, finance, and media industries. But this map seems to provide strong support for the hypothesis that policymakers seeking to create a prosperous local economy shouldn't sweat the business tax rate too much.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/10/09/state_tax_climate_tax_foundation_shows_taxes_don_t_matter.html
Their hatred for Obama has gone so deep that at time you wonder if Putin had invaded the US and taken over the WH the would not feel better..Take a deep breath put America first for a change.
ReplyDeleteA new state-by-state count of multimillionaires shows that some of the highest tax states created the most millionaires. The study, from UBS and Wealth-X, ranked states by their populations of people worth $30 million or more—presumably the most mobile part of the wealth chain and the most sensitive to taxes.
ReplyDeleteCalifornia was the top producer of multimillionaires over the past year, gaining more than 1,600 people worth $30 million or more. The state also has the nation's highest tax rate—13.3 percent—for people making $1 million or more.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101230445
The Tea Party is an updated version of the John Birch Society started in the 1950's..
ReplyDelete.....Keep in mind, the Koch Brother's father, Fred C. Koch was a founding member of the 1950's John Birch Society ...
If you check out the John Birch Society, you will find their goals and philosophy are about the same as The Tea Party...The only difference is, this is 2014 with a catchy name, and tons of money to influence people/elections
Delete"On June 20, 1979, the Carter administration installed 32 panels designed to harvest the sun's rays and use them to heat water.
ReplyDeleteHere is what Carter predicted at the dedication ceremony: "In the year 2000 this solar water heater behind me, which is being dedicated today, will still be here supplying cheap, efficient energy…. A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people."
By 1986, [the WH panels had been removed and] the Reagan administration had gutted the research and development budgets for renewable energy at the then-fledgling U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and eliminated tax breaks for the deployment of wind turbines and solar technologies—recommitting the nation to reliance on cheap but polluting fossil fuels, often from foreign suppliers. "The Department of Energy has a multibillion-dollar budget, in excess of $10 billion," Reagan said during an election debate with Carter, justifying his opposition to the latter's energy policies. "It hasn't produced a quart of oil or a lump of coal or anything else in the line of energy."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carter-white-house-solar-panel-array/
So we have a whole series of new laws meant to address a non-existent problem, but whose implementation will severely limit the opportunity for a lot of people to exercise a basic Constitutional right. Wow
ReplyDeleteWhy do the Republicans repeatedly go back to policies that have failed? Are they so bereft of ideas that the only thing they can do is look to the past?
ReplyDeleteAs the rich get richer and store more of their loot off shore and out of the nation's economy
ReplyDeleteLibertarianism is one of those things that sounds good when you read about it in high school, or maybe your first year of college. But once you are out in the real world for say, five, or even six entire minutes, you quickly realize it's a narcissistic, child-like ideology that doesn't actually work and has no basis in reality
ReplyDeleteToday's GOP is the inevitable consequence of their 35 years embracing anti-intellectualism as patriotic and willful ignorance as a virtue.
ReplyDeleteThis is not about the Koch Brothers, per se, it is about the corruptive influence of extreme consolidated wealth, which they happen to represent from the perspective of the Left, on Politics and Governance.
ReplyDeleteBig Money, it doesn’t matter whether it is from the Left or the Right, is drowning The People’s Voice out of our Representative Democracy, plain and simple
It seems that only those on the Left are concerned about this. Why? Do we cherish the idea of Democracy more than those on the Right?
How is it that so many on the Right, who practically worship the Founders of this, cannot see that this conflux of consolidated wealth and influence is EXACTLY what the Founders fought against?
History has proven through the centuries that the type of wealth/power consolidation we are seeing is rarely a good thing.
I'm not against wealth. I'm against wealth buying the democratic process. It's as simply as that.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that we entertain republicans at all. They are consistently wrong and yet we ALWAYS respond to them as if they have credibility.
ReplyDeleteJust because they make an accusation doesn't mean we need to defend anything.
The burden of proof is on them.
Republicans: The party that believes that government cannot work.
ReplyDelete.................... Gets elected and then sets out to prove themselves right.
CONservative economic theories have never worked and never will. You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteHave you ever met a right winger who wasn't a coward and a crybaby?
The greatest failure in the Libertarian, Tea Party, and Republican Party philosophy is this absurd notion that getting rid of regulations and restrictions of government on business....people, human beings, will always do the right thing. There are currently very few regulations on burning coal in China....the result is a high-level emergency and health crisis that has the Chinese government scrambling to put together legislation that can be enforced BY GOVERNMENT.
ReplyDeleteGovernment also exists to take care of and protect its citizens against other citizens. Purist Randian philosophy is just the Law of the Jungle in a tie and a coat.
Every time I listen to the small-gummint wingnuts, I reminds me of my 8 year old when she says that rules like limits on candy and computer-time don't make sense.
ReplyDeletePeople are productive. Corporations are on welfare because they're taking all the profit that the the people's not-lazy productivity is generating.
ReplyDeleteMinimum wage employees are not welfare queens. Their employers are
Right. Because in America we don't pay taxes and vote on how that money is best spent for the country, everybody just pays for whatever services they need. It's not like I had to pay any taxes for a war I didn't support.
ReplyDeleteYou live in a country, not by yourself out in the woods. You don't like how taxes are spent, win an election
most people don't get to choose, they are indoctrinated from birth. Most people who actually make measured, well thought-out, rational decisions about faith as a conscious, cognizant adult don't usually switch faiths but abandon it entirely
ReplyDeleteSuccessful Americans didn't make their money themselves. They conducted business in an ordered society with roads and laws and a military that defends it from foreign invaders and they hired people. Nobody wants YOUR money, they want the share they contributed to it
ReplyDeleteThe whole reason democracy was invented as a means to make the rich and powerful give up their stranglehold on wealth and power. Of course they don't believe in democracy, they see it is an upstart insurgency of the rabble upsetting the balance of nature where rich white males rule as they were meant to.
ReplyDeleteSo this is still relevant but we're supposed to just forget about 9/11, the 08 crash, the tax cuts for the rich, going to war against the wrong country, selling the ports to the Arabs, etc, ad infiitum
ReplyDeleteRush Limbaugh,
ReplyDeleteHis AUDIENCE is unable to grasp concepts that aren't all or nothing, and he goes to great effort to keep it that way
That is the problem, conservatives very seldom tell you their intentions. They talk nuances "job creation" "deficit reduction", "Austerity", They just can not say it loud and proud: I WILL GIVE YOUR GOVERNMENT TO THE RICH AND POWERFUL, (because is unfair that The Middle Class make any money at all and corporations do not get to keep all of it) SO I CAN GIVE IT TO THOSE WHO ALREADY HAVE MOST OF THE MONEY FROM BUYING CONGRESSMEN AND DEREGULATING INDUSTRY.
ReplyDeleteYou are apparently incapable of knowing how much Fox News to drink..
ReplyDeleteNBC was owned by GE, a major military contractor. Rachel made constant disclosures about it any time she did stories about military contractors or the parent company.
ReplyDeleteLiberals are quite attuned to who everyone's corporate overlords are and how much control they exert.
before the ACA we *were* letting every state decide for themselves. It wasn't working, that's why there's an ACA.
ReplyDeleteI can back my claim with *public admissions* from actual Republicans that Voter ID is indeed meant to steal elections in their favor.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nationalmemo.com/pennsylvania-gop-chief-admits-voter-id-laws-suppressed-democratic-vote-in-2012
The silent majority is liberal. When more people vote, Democrats win; when less people vote, Republicans win.
ReplyDeleteAny plan to get more people to vote, in a democracy, is patriotic
Any plan to get less people to vote, in America 2013, is Republican
Thank you for putting that in terms us libs can understand.
ReplyDeleteWe are now crystal clear on your completely false understanding of national finances
Ah so you're the guy responsible for teaching people to be stupid. Got it!
ReplyDeleteHow about being an INFORMED voter and actually doing some homework and seeing who actually fights AGAINST all this nonsense. If you vote against, say, Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders, YOU are part of the problem.
ReplyDeleteMaking you think the whole government sucks was the EXACT goal of the minority of political terrorists who orchestrated this mess. Don't fall for it. Your government does great things when you pay attention.
If the GOP tanks, it will reemerge in another form rather quickly in this day and age I would think. In it's current state, it is rabid, a danger to itself and everyone else. The sooner it is put down the better it will be for everyone except the super-rich, including the rest of the world. And that's not hyperbole
ReplyDeletePick a crime! Any crime! Accuse him of something! "Violating the Constitution" how? What law did he break? Make something up like you usually do, but you still have to make something up! You can't just impeach him because he's not Republican.
ReplyDeleteYou can't convict someone just because you don't like them. You can't arrest someone because you disagree with them. Impeachment is not a way to over-ride an election. You can't impeach someone just because THEY WON THE VOTE
Voter fraud means changing the results of an election dishonestly. Claiming there is enough *individual* voter fraud to justify disenfranchising a significant percentage of voters disingenuously alters election results far more than the incidence of individual voter fraud.
ReplyDeleteYes, your side made it clear that you were going on strike against Democracy and the process of governing as defined by The Constitution as soon as you learned you didn't win the white house in 08. And all that intransigence and doing whatever you want despite the whole country opposing you keeps making you more popular doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteWinning strategy, keep it up!
"Conservatives" is just a euphemism for thugs and bullies, so "Religious Conservatives" is redundant
ReplyDeleteIf you live in a media bubble that tells you everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and you're smart, you will get your ass handed to you the first time you step out of that bubble. Ask the Romney campaign.
ReplyDeleteWe Vote, We Win, it's really that simple.
ReplyDeleteThe GOP has no agenda other than to attack everything Obama. I am amazed that their white male constituency can't see that they are being manipulated
ReplyDeleteToo bad conservatives get their economic education from Rush and Fox who parrot Heritage Foundation talking points.
ReplyDeleteFor working people the economy has been in recession since 1973:
ReplyDelete1. Before 1973, The inflation Adjusted Median Income rose at 2.5% per year:
1953 = $22,648
1973 = $34,762
2. From 1973 to 2009, Inflation Adjusted Median Income fell by $2,578.
1973 = $34,762
2009 = $32,184
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/da¬ta/histori¬cal/people/P05AR_2009.xls
4. While per capita GPD has doubled:
1969 = $21,021
2010 = $42,517
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/m¬acroeconomics/Data/H¬istoricalRealPerCapitaIncomeValues.xls
5. This is accomplish by shifting the income distributi¬on:
Share Of Aggregate Income by Quintile:
BOTTOM 20% – 1967: 4.0% 2009: 3.4% Change: -0.6%
LOWER MIDDLE – 1967: 10.8% 2009: 8.6% Change: -2.2%
MIDDLE CLASS – 1967: 17.3% 2009: 14.6% Change: -2.7%
UPPER MIDDLE – 1967: 24.2% 2009: 23.2% Change: -1.0%
UPPER CLASS – 1967: 43.6% 2009: 50.3% Change: +6.7%
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/H02AR_2009.xls
Bottom line message: WORK MORE, PRODUCE MORE, BUT GET LESS”
3. The same thing shows up in Weekly Earnings
All earners:
1979 = $339
2008 = $339
No Change over 30 years
Men:
1979 = $412
2010 = $389
DECREASE of $23/week
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?le
http://investmentwatchblog.com/for-working-people-the-economy-has-been-in-recession-since-1973/
Google is your friend
Delete1&2) From 1947 to 1973 – a period of just 26 years – inflation-adjusted median income in the United States more than doubled. But in the 31 years from 1973 to 2004, it rose only 22 percent. And, over the last decade, it actually declined. -
WITH LINKS
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/01/median-itis.html
4) Per capita. Grab the first one
http://search.ers.usda.gov/search?affiliate=ers&query=per%20capita%20GPD
5) Share of income percentile
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/publications/newydata.pdf
3)
Here
http://www.bls.gov/cps/earnings.htm
here
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/02/art5full.pdf
and here
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswktabs.htm
RIGHT WINGERS ARE HORRIBLE AT ECONOMICS
The last 40 years of conservative think tank legislation has killed the economy
ReplyDeleteConsumer Spending Will Not Save Our economy: Pay Fell 7% in Last Decade and Economists Say It Won’t Catch Up Before 2021; Even College Graduates See Salaries Slide
Americans’ incomes have dropped since 2000 and they aren’t expected to make up the lost ground before 2021, according to economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.
From 2000 to 2010, median income in the U.S. declined 7% after adjusting for inflation, according to Census data. That marks the worst 10-year performance in records going back to 1967.
Socialism does not mean what you think it does. It is not Soviet communism, it is a methodology to equitably share resources in society.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't possibly be the wage stagnation for 30+ years of Reaganomics tilting the playing field toward plutocracy as all the profits of increased productivity go upward to executives and insiders.
Maybe we should go back to the good old days when tax rates were high and the corporations save their tax money by reinvesting into their company instead of just pulling everything out.
ReplyDeleteSocialism! That's that word that your politicians use that it's so nasty. Socialism. Other places just call it sharing. It's a good thing! You just share and give some to the less fortunate. -Fred Eaglesmith
ReplyDelete'People might consider the implications of applying any rules to economic activity. Do we have any right to tell a business how it can operate, hire or fire personnel, the products it sells and to whom?
ReplyDeleteMost of us in America were raised with the conviction that government has no right to intervene in the economy"
(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics
When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.
American School of Economics
Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:
protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_%28economics%29#Origins
Business does not create jobs. Jobs are created by consumer demand
ReplyDeleteBoth private sector (individual) and public sector (collective) a business has no existence without the consumer needs and wants. It is the consumer that creates the jobs, and it is producers that fill them.
A business is simply a framework for a joint venture between a group of economic system participants to produce a product or service that is needed or in demand because of want by other economic system participants.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
ReplyDeleteJohn Kenneth Galbraith
I do not know which makes a man more conservative — to know nothing but the present, or nothing but the past.
ReplyDeleteJohn Maynard Keynes
I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
ReplyDeleteJohn Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington
Conservative: One who admires radicals a century after they're dead.
ReplyDeleteLeo Rosten
The institution of a leisure class acts to make the lower classes conservative by withdrawing from them as much as it may of the means of sustenance, and so reducing their consumption, and consequently their available energy, to such a point as to make them incapable of the effort required for the learning and adoption of new habits of thought.
ReplyDeleteThorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) Ch.8, p.204
Conservatism, A Radical generally meant a man who thought he could somehow pull up the root without affecting the flower. A Conservative generally meant a man who wanted to conserve everything except his own reason for conserving anything.
ReplyDeleteG.K. Chesterton, in "The Evolution of Words and Meanings" in The Illustrated London News (3 July 1920).
How long did it take Reagan to reduce the unemployment rate to below 8%?
ReplyDelete01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment
will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%
01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%
01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%
01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%
It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.
http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/tag/unemployment-rate/
Republican Record on Shipping American Jobs Overseas:
ReplyDeletehttp://thegavel.democraticleader.house.gov/?p=5433
CONservatives simplistic minds
ReplyDeleteIf you are rich it is because of your merits. If you are poor its because of your faults.
For many Republicans it's any means to the end, so cheating is perfectly acceptable
ReplyDeleteIT'S A SCANDAL IT'S A SCANDAL, IT'S A SCANDAL, SCANDAL I TELL YOU,
ReplyDeleteSCANDAL,SCANDAL,SCANDAL!!!!!!!
No I don't know what, where, when or who but give Issa more time and there will be a scandal, there will be I know Obama did it, I know he did, Fox said so..
We need Obama to start showing some balls like Lyndon Johnson
ReplyDeleteRepublicans using dead Americans for partisan poliitical gain
ReplyDelete"The most intelligent, educated, and informed people are almost never Republicans
ReplyDeleteHal Montereyradio
Think that headline is a little too strong? Well consider this: Only 6% of scientists are registered republicans. Or this: Only 7% of journalists are registered republicans. We can agree, can’t we, that becoming a scientist requires a remarkable dedication to scholarship, education, and to the truth? We can agree, can’t we, that nobody knows more about the working of our “democracy” than journalists? So, why have well over 90% of those who have followed a scientific or journalistic path rejected the Republican party? Could the answer be more obvious? The Republican war on science fought on behalf of the wealthiest and most powerful and the utter contempt which Congressional Republicans hold for the democratic process have completely alienated our brightest, most informed, and most curious."
What do you expect from people who lie, distort, and misrepresent everything they say because they have to, otherwise their bullsh-t would be obvious even to the stupid people that agree with them because they do not have a clue...
ReplyDeleteWe have a political party and *news* channel that caters to people who live in Black-n-White World. Even though nearly all societies have some socialist aspects to them, Faux News and Republicans like to spotlight individual things and label them and anyone who supports them as "socialist."
ReplyDeleteMost of Faux News viewers are non-1%er retirees, which means they are lapping up most of the socialism the US offers its citizens: social security and Medicare.
Parrots repeat what they hear. The RW media doesn't profit from educating their listeners. They know the money is in saying outrageous things that fit their listeners ideology. The listeners want to be outraged. The RW media produces the outrageous material. Truth not required. It's a symbiotic relationship.
ReplyDelete"Socialist" is just a catch-all term the Right uses to scare the yahoos who really don't know what it even means . . .
ReplyDeleteThe most recent, single act of Socialism was instituted by Bush Jr. and Henry Paulson, when they transferred 1 trillion dollars to Wall Street. That transfer met every definition of socialism ever written.
ReplyDeleteThe most recent, single act of Socialism was instituted by Bush Jr. and Henry Paulson, when they transferred 1 trillion dollars to Wall Street. That transfer met every definition of socialism ever written.
ReplyDeleteIt really is quite laughable to hear people refer to Warren, Obama, and the Democrats in general as "far left" and/or "socialist." I think it is a point of view issue. The Republicans have been pulled so far to the extreme right by the Tea Party that, from their vantage point, just about ANYONE else seems like a leftist. How else do you explain Glenn Beck calling John McCain a "progressive?"
ReplyDeleteOkay, let's use the word "socialism," which is somewhat ambiguous.
ReplyDeleteBut we can keep it simple.
Socialism - We're all in this boat together, we should help each other.
Conservatism - Every man for himself!
Conservatives are only using deficit reduction as a wedge issue, they are not serious about it.
ReplyDeleteWhy Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
ReplyDeleteBy David Cay Johnston
The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.
George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."
The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."
James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."
Follow Newsweek
Get top stories emailed to you each day.
Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."
Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html
Look at these so called CONservative guru's, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck ( the three wise monkeys) you name it, everyone of them dropped out of college, too dumb possibly, but more likely too close minded to accept any other opinion or theory!!!
ReplyDeleteMany people I listen to who say they are conservatives don't have two cents to scratch their a**s with, and here's the funny part most of them don't even have health insurance, not because they choose not to have it, but because they can't afford it, or simply because they can't get it because of current state of health, and they still defend the system.......truly pathetic!!!
Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street
ReplyDeleteBUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/13/137789065/why-prosecutors-dont-go-after-wall-street
“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all
The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-two-documents-everyon_b_169813.html
Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/25/business/fi-mortgagefraud25
Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:
Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2005
The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all
DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!
Alexander Hamilton was protectionism's first major advocate. George Washington, in his first Address to Congress, said 'A free people . . should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military supplies.' Thomas Jefferson made a similar statement in 1816, as did also James Madison in 1815, and James Monroe in 1822. Southern states objected after the 1820s, seeing its slave-labor workforce unsuitable for industrial work.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Case-Against-Free-Trade-ebook/dp/B007BYRZQK
If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.
ReplyDeleteThese people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.
They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.
ReplyDeleteCarter 1977
Jan 7.5%
Feb 7.6
March 7.4
April 7.2
May 7.0
June 7.2
July 6.9
Aug 7.0
Sept 6.8
Oct 6.8
Nov 6.8
Dec 6.4
1978
Jan 6.4
Feb 6.3
March 6.3
Apr 6.1
May 6.0
Jun 5.9
July 6.2
Aug 5.9
Sep 6.0
Oct 5.8
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0
1979
Jan 5.9
Feb 5.9
Mar 5.8
Apr 5.8
May 5.6
Jun 5.7
Jul 5.7
Aug 6.0
Sept 5.9
Oct 6.0
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0
1980
Jan 6.3
Feb 6.3
Mar 6.3
Apr 6.9
May 7.5
Jun 7.6
Jul 7.8
Aug 7.7
Sept 7.5
Oct 7.5
Nov 7.5
Dec 7.2
01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%
01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%
01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%
01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%
It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
AGAIN, CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8
Jan 1979 65,636,000
Jan 1981 74,677,000
INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS
Jan 1981 74,677,000
Jan 1989 89,394,000
14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
I THOUGH CARTER WAS HORRIBLE? LOL
1%er Warns Fellow Plutocrats Neoliberalism Will Lead to Violent Class Revolution
ReplyDeleteThough Charles and David Koch may be grabbing the headlines promoting a 1% neo-feudal agenda, not everyone in the upper echelons of the American plutocracy is on board. Nick Hanauer, a super rich venture capitalist, recently wrote a piece condemning neoliberalism – often called “trickle-down economics” – saying the current economic system is not only unfair and causing resentment but counter-productive to a thriving middle class saying “These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base.”
http://news.firedoglake.com/2014/06/27/1er-warns-fellow-plutocrats-neoliberalism-will-lead-to-violent-class-revolution/
CBO: Fed tax rates hit historic low
ReplyDeleteThe average tax rates for American households reached a historical low in 2009, according to a report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Indeed, federal taxes for American households averaged 17.4 percent in 2009, a historical low over the 1979 to 2009 period.
WEIRD, WASN'T THAT WHEN THE TP (BIRCHERS) WERE FORMED?
www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78386.html
Your taxes are really low, in one chart
[IMG]http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/04/taxes.png[/IMG]
The average filer saw her effective tax rate drop from 22 percent in 1979 to 18.1 percent in 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/04/11/your-taxes-are-really-low-in-one-chart/
Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950
Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm
Libertarians are frauds and parasites but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving. Sadly their freedom isn't freedom, it is chaos and opens the door to a real loss of democracy.
ReplyDeleteThey unwittingly use the protections, benefits and accomplishments government has to offer to create their fortunes, while pompously declaring they did it all on their own.
DeleteClueless igets, everyone.
Even the Wall Street Journal says:
ReplyDeleteBush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
http://i.imgur.com/Jw4unw3.png?1
Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010101196.html
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/01/01/GR2010010101701.gif
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/01/01/GR2010010101478.jpg
"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation."
ReplyDelete-- Thomas Jefferson; letter to James Madison (1785)
WHJAT A BUNCH OF RIGHT WING CRAP
ReplyDeletePrivate sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC
Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law
Community Reinvestment Act, blamed for home market crash, didn't apply to the banks that did the most lending.
BANKSTER:
Bob Davis, executive vice president of the American Bankers Association, which lobbies Congress to streamline community reinvestment rules, said "it just isn't credible" to blame the law CRA for the crisis.
"Institutions that are subject to CRA - that is, banks and savings asociations - were largely not involved in subprime lending," Davis said. "The bulk of the loans came through a channel that was not subject to CRA."
Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register
Banks used cheap capital to create a bubble. Their lending strategies fueled and fed off the housing bubble, and they did so using mortgage products whose performance was premised on continued growth of that bubble.
Yes, 6% of ALL loans 2004-2008 were done by CRA covered banks, NOT that CRA was the goal on anywhere near the 6%, but it's CRA that is the problem *shaking head*
Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."
Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.
NOW ABOUT THOSE BANKSTERS APPEARING ON TV AND BLAMING CRA? Yes, I know, AEI and right wingers created garbage to TRY to pin on CRA, lol
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/196660-elizabeth-warren-vs-hillary-clinton-w-336-a-32.html