Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
History will not be kind to Reagan. The truth is that many of the problems in the US today have their roots in the 1960s, but accelerated in the 1980s.
Reagan's plea for everybody to enrich themselves created a mentality in Americans that it's okay not to give a **** about anybody else, and it was internalized like nobody's business. The idea of "society" was thrown down the drain by the right; thus you see the "greed, greed, greed," "me, me, me!" attitude that is so prevalent amongst Conservatives (and is readily apparent on this forum).
People are not islands - they need society in order to survive. It's always been like that, and always will be. No amount of browbeating about "I'm not responsible for them!" will change that.
I think you been reading to many socialist book, 40 million people on welfare in America does not sound like a me me me society. sound like 40 million people are enriching themself on the backs of those people you call me me me people
Cutting taxes and spending the same is supply side economics. Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia “Current supply-side economics is primarily concerned with economic growth in general, and does not hold that decreasing taxes increases government revenue. It is true that many early proponents argued that the size of the economic growth would be significant enough that the increased government revenue from a faster growing economy would be sufficient to compensate completely for the short-term costs of a tax cut, and that tax cuts could, in fact, cause overall revenue to increase.[1]. However, in 2003, the Wall Street Journal declared the debate over the ability of supply-side economics to reduce taxes without cost has ended "with a whimper," after extensive modeling performed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) failed to support that possibility.[2]”from the link Reagan said that we would get more revenue from cutting taxes. It didn’t work out that way and he was talking about cutting taxes and keeping spending the same. That is what he was calling supply side economics. I was talking about what Reagan was doing and what his decisions were and the effects those decision have had long term. Changing definitions after the fact just well makes a discussion pointless. I will agree with you there. If we had limited our spending then we would not be in nearly the same trouble that we are now. If we hadn’t cut the top tax rate and had an economic depression back then it would have been far less painful than what we have coming our way now. The Republicans spend more, more, more as well. Finger point is useless at this point in time. The real political situation is this. The plutocracy is on one side the proletariat is on the other side divided in half between the democrats and the republicans. Divide and concur.
so we agree that what democratic control congress and president Obama did the last two years, kept the Bush tax cuts in place and and spend a tremendous amounts of money. is fiscaly irresposible!! supply side economics, so why shouldnt Americans call for spending to stop republicans and democrat both together no more welfare for corporations,for people who do not need it. cut entilements, rework union contracts, medicare ,medicaid. no politician wants to cut any of that why? we are broke !!!
It's well known that he had Alzheimer's for during his last term... nothing new here... he also exploded the deficit with his nuclear and defense build-up... but he did do one good thing in lowering the highest tax rates.
so we agree that what democratic control congress and president Obama did the last two years, kept the Bush tax cuts in place and and spend a tremendous amounts of money. is fiscaly irresposible!! supply side economics,
Yes we are agreed that it is fiscally irresponsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gysmo
so why shouldnt Americans call for spending to stop republicans and democrat both together no more welfare for corporations,
Remember what I said about Realpolitik? We live in a true plutocracy. The wealthy rule. Tax the poor and give the money to the rich. Corporate welfare is the worst thing we have ever seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gysmo
for people who do not need it.
I live in Utah and the Mormon way of doing welfare is really cool everyone works for what they get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gysmo
cut entilements, rework union contracts, medicare ,medicaid. no politician wants to cut any of that why? we are broke !!!
OK up minimum wage (4X) and those that have a job don't need entitlements. Cutting those would be good after that. Put the top tax rate back up too 90%. We need higher wages as those are what keep the money from pooling in the hands of a very few, so I'd don't really think that much about cutting unions down. Fiscal responsibility. That is what we need.
Yes we are agreed that it is fiscally irresponsible. Remember what I said about Realpolitik? We live in a true plutocracy. The wealthy rule. Tax the poor and give the money to the rich. Corporate welfare is the worst thing we have ever seen. I live in Utah and the Mormon way of doing welfare is really cool everyone works for what they get. OK up minimum wage (4X) and those that have a job don't need entitlements. Cutting those would be good after that. Put the top tax rate back up too 90%. We need higher wages as those are what keep the money from pooling in the hands of a very few, so I'd don't really think that much about cutting unions down. Fiscal responsibility. That is what we need.
ok you lost me at raising minimum wage and taxing taxing the top at 90%. government is the problem, they cause the money to pool through regulations. GM. should have gone under along with the union that drove that corp. down.
Raising the minimum wage was merely another stupid act on the part of this President, and there will undoubtedly be more boneheaded moves from coming down the pike.
ok you lost me at raising minimum wage and taxing taxing the top at 90%. government is the problem, they cause the money to pool through regulations. GM. should have gone under along with the union that drove that corp. down.
They, the government, also cause money to pool with the tax structure. Having it pool in the middle class is a really good place for it to be. With a high top marginal tax rate it tends to pool in the middle class.
Raising the minimum wage was merely another stupid act on the part of this President, and there will undoubtedly be more boneheaded moves from coming down the pike.
M3 is contracting. This is monetary deflation. The fed is printing money like mad. This is monetary inflation. The combination of the two is stagflation, contracting economy and higher prices. M3 is leveraged on income. If you want M3 to expand you need more income. Upping the minimum wage will get you more income to leverage. We need 4X times the minimum wage. That is how much more income we need in the bottom end to support the housing prices at the peak of the last bubble.
They, the government, also cause money to pool with the tax structure. Having it pool in the middle class is a really good place for it to be. With a high top marginal tax rate it tends to pool in the middle class.
with HIGH TOP MARGINAL TAX RATE THE MONEY TENDS TO POOL IN THE MIDDLE CLASS, BECAUSE WHY??? THOSE AT THE TOP TAX RATE NOT ONLY WANT TO PAY THE GOVERNMENT MORE MONEY BUT OLSO, WANT TO PAY MORE TO THE MIDDLE CLASS WHO WORK FOR THEM. MAKES NO SENSE!!!!
with HIGH TOP MARGINAL TAX RATE THE MONEY TENDS TO POOL IN THE MIDDLE CLASS, BECAUSE WHY??? THOSE AT THE TOP TAX RATE NOT ONLY WANT TO PAY THE GOVERNMENT MORE MONEY BUT OLSO, WANT TO PAY MORE TO THE MIDDLE CLASS WHO WORK FOR THEM. MAKES NO SENSE!!!!
When you have a high top tax rate you try to hide your income. How do you hide your income? By paying someone to do something useful. If you are rich and you get a tax brake. What do you do with your money? You invest it. You give it to someone with the expectation of getting it back with interest. (That is an over simplification.) What you really do is to leverage up your money as far as you can loan that money to someone with the intent of getting it back with interest. You can double your money each year doing this. One place that the money in this plan goes is into consumer debt. It happened in the roaring 1920's and again in the 1980's, '90's and 2000's. The 30 years of prosperity that the GOP talks about as being unprecedented has a president. The roaring 20's. Will we have a great depression. Ya but the spin is that it is just a slow down and not anything to wory about because the recession is over.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
