Overpaid CEOs and Greedy Capitalists.. oh my!

[Rshermr]

So, amazon, makes the really, really interesting statements below. Funny how hard this poor challenged person works at trying to change what I say. And how closely she stays alligned in all respects to the far, far right. So, lets start with this qoute from Amazon:

More examples of your bad history. The capital gains tax cut was implemented by Clinton in 1997. Guess what also happened in 1997.

Uh, Amazon, my poor fact challenged tool, you may want to check your history. The clinton cap gain tax cuts did not go into effect until mid 1998. Must have been a phantom effect, eh, Amazon. Funny, same thing all of those bat shit crazy con web sites try. Move the time back a couple years. Why, by coincidence, their efforts to change history was JUST LIKE YOU, in this case.

A 50% increase in the DOW in 3 years. Granted this is all phony wealth fueled by an asset bubble. But the fact remains when you lower capital gains taxes, people invest more. People invest more, the economy grows faster. The economy grows faster, more jobs are created. More jobs being created, unemployment rate goes down.

Again, you are looking at a boom that started WELL BEFORE THE CLINTON capital gains tax decreases took effect.
So, me poor ignorant money changer. You are proving, in your own mind, that decreasing a tax, in this case cap gains, makes the economy better. While it may have had some small impact it was very very little, again, except in the minds of those of the bat shit crazy con web sites out there. And they ALL say that the deficits at this time were due to the decrease in cap gains taxes that caused the deficit, not the stimulative spending earlier. If you can find another source that agrees that the cap gains any big difference, lets see the quote. Funny, though, not being a con, that you pick up their dogma. But I am sure you are no con. Even though if you simply google "clinton's capital gains tax cuts " you wil see two pages of hits that are all right wing bat shit crazy web sites that suggest what you suggest. Again, I am sure you are not getting the above information from those sources. You would not be a con, now would you, Amazon. I mean, you said you are not. So.....
But here is the thing, me ignorant money changer. Now, see if you can pay attention. I said lowering taxes in a BAD economic time characterized by high ue. Now, here is the issue. The ue when clinton did the cap gains tax reduction the ue rate was (now pay attention, Amazon) UNDER 5%. Which then, you see, should you be able to follow this, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOWERING TAXES DURING TIMES OF HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT. And, should you have been able to read, you would have seen that I said there is absolutely NO PROBLEM with decreasing taxes during good economic times. Has been done, you see, by presidents of both parties throughout the history of our economy. Generally with good results.
So, nice try. But a swing and a miss. Which is why it is always a good idea to stay out of those bat shit crazy con sites. Here is a really nice site to check monthly ue rates. Maybe it will help you stop that anoying habit of lying.
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States

The tax reform Reagan implemented happened in 1986. The unemployment rate was already below 7% by the time this all happened. Basic history and Google fails you once again. And again, military spending is not stimulus. No matter how many times you want it to be. Spending money on tanks and bombs does not stimulate the economy.

Wow. So the initial tax decreases everyone saw, in 1981, according to you did not happen. Really, Amazon? I provided a sourse for you below, just to help you out. If you look, the upper tax rate dropped by 20%. That makes you not just a liar, but a really obvious liar.
The tax decrease of 86 was done during good economic times. After 11 tax increases and borrowing enough to triple the national debt. So, no one, and certainly not I, said anything was wrong with decreasing taxes in 1986. By about another 15%. It only really screwed bush 1 a couple years later.

And, me poor ignorant money changer, spending money on tanks and bombs DOES INDEED STIMULATE THE ECONOMY. Check minor things like what happened during WWII. Ever here of the military industrial complex. They make things, they hire people, etc, etc.
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxf...ocs/fed_rates_history_nominal_1913_2013_0.pdf

Then, I said:
"Did you believe that you read me suggest that raising taxes would cause a better economy? You did not, but nice try. A lie."
To which you said:

You just said it in your last sentence, you nutter...

Maybe your problem here is just an inability to understand the kings english. What I said, and have always maintained, is that raising taxes can provide revenue for stimulus spending. Stimulus spending will generally make the economy better during high ue times. You really need to try to follow this really, really simple concept. And quit suggesting that I said raising taxes causes a better economy. That would be another lie. Assuming, of course, that we can hold you accountable cognitive responsiveness.
And it would be better to not call someone a nutter when it is you who are in error. Makes you look so silly, and dishonest.

I already did. Unless you are going to deny the biggest surge in the Dow Jones during the 90's.

JESUS. No, you did NOT show a time when lowering taxes during high ue helped the economy. Because at the time the ue was LOW. Check out the link I provided you above. And, again you try to make the connection that the economic success of the late 1990's was the result of cap gains tax decreases. Which did not happen until 1998. Well after the economy was souring. But nice try to make it 1996. Which many of the bat shit crazy con web sites also try. But it was, me poor truth challenged money changer, 1998.
So, you need to try to keep your facts straight, and provide accurate data. And look at what I said rather than what you would like to say I said. A little integrity goes a long way.

Again, I don't understand your poorly phrased sentences. Just show what you are trying to present. I have other idiots on this forum to refute.

Ah, now it is poorly phrased sentences. Funny, amazon. What I said was clear. Which was, again, that during times of high unemployment, lowering taxes has never helped. Is that too complex for you to understand. So, you did not refute what I said. You completely failed to do so. And yes, indeed, you did twist in the wind trying to do so. Funny.

 

[Rshermr]

"Rshermr" ....Now, isn't that a name that you just KNOW is a liberal retard? When you people are creating your screen names, do you just type them with your elbows or something? Why is it always a retarded liberal who has a screen name that can't even be pronounced? You never see this from conservatives or libertarians, it's always the mindless goofy liberal. Never fails!

Well, then, I guess I should change my name to keep you happy. Maybe I should make up a background like you, tell everyone I was a ceo, and call myself boss. Oh, I guess not. Someone has already done that.

Nooo... you totally misunderstand, which I am sure is common with you. I think it's appropriate you have a retarded screen name, and wouldn't suggest you change a thing. It actually helps us conservatives distinguish between the retarded liberals and the brain damaged liberals.

I haven't "made up" a background or anything else about myself, I don't even comprehend why I would want to do that. This is an anonymous message board, you can't confirm or deny anything said here, so what difference does it make? I revealed I was once a CEO, not because I was bragging, in fact, I even said that very thing, but because you seemed to think I was asking you what a CEO did because I didn't know. I asked because I wanted to see if you knew, and you didn't, because you've still not answered the question. Of course, this made you look foolish and you didn't like that, so now you are hurling lies and insinuations at me as fast as you can, but that's not working for you either.

Here is your major misconception, me poor ignorant troll. You think you have some right to ask me something. I do not get paid to try to read your mind, and play little mind games with you. A total waste of time. Nor do I have any interest in trying to educate you. I fully understand that trying to educate the mentally incompitent is a complete waste of time.
And, if you think you know what all ceo's do, GREAT. We can all create lists, and argue over them. But, you see, by doing so, you have proven yourself to be a fraud. To me, and I am sure many many others. Because, you see, I have worked with a fairly large number of ceo's over the years. And none, not a single one, would agree with your hypotheses. All would, I am confident, see you as I do. As a fraud. So, there you go. You are correct. I can not prove anything, nor can you. But why you think ANYONE cares about what you believe to be common characteristics of ceo's is totally beyond me.

By the way, the ceo's that I know all have a level of class that you do not. Really. Maoists. Jesus. You are way to ignorant.

 

[Boss]

You are way to ignorant.

That's "too" ignorant.

 

[Rshermr]

You are way to ignorant.

That's "too" ignorant.

Yup. Nice to have you around to pick up on typo's. Very ceo like activity.

 

[georgephillip]

A view from the left flank of today's global class war:

"Let’s face it; the economy has never gotten better, not for working people at least. And now it’s getting worse; should we be surprised?

Not at all.

"The system is performing the way it’s set to perform; providing unlimited sums of money for speculators and moneybags friends of Obama, and table scraps for everyone else.

"Here’s a blurb from the Wall Street Journal that just confirms what everyone already knows:

“From 2009 to 2011, the average wealth of America’s richest 7% — the 8 million households with a net worth north of about $800,000 — rose nearly 30% to $3.2 million from $2.5 million, according to a Pew Research Center report that analyzed recent Census data.

"By contrast, the average wealth of America’s remaining 93%, some 111 million households, actually dropped by 4% to $134,000 from $140,000..."

"So all the money is going upwards, but we’re expected to believe that that’s not what policymakers had in mind to begin with; that it’s all just one big accident?"

What say the 1%ers and their wanna-bees?

Back to Recession » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[Boss]

A view from the left flank of today's global class war:

"Let’s face it; the economy has never gotten better, not for working people at least. And now it’s getting worse; should we be surprised?

Not at all.

"The system is performing the way it’s set to perform; providing unlimited sums of money for speculators and moneybags friends of Obama, and table scraps for everyone else.

"Here’s a blurb from the Wall Street Journal that just confirms what everyone already knows:

“From 2009 to 2011, the average wealth of America’s richest 7% — the 8 million households with a net worth north of about $800,000 — rose nearly 30% to $3.2 million from $2.5 million, according to a Pew Research Center report that analyzed recent Census data.

"By contrast, the average wealth of America’s remaining 93%, some 111 million households, actually dropped by 4% to $134,000 from $140,000..."

"So all the money is going upwards, but we’re expected to believe that that’s not what policymakers had in mind to begin with; that it’s all just one big accident?"

What say the 1%ers and their wanna-bees?

Back to Recession » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Look, I don't know WHY this is such a hard concept for some people to grasp, but wealthy people tend to make wealth faster than poor people. Just like fat people tend to eat more than skinny people. Just like fast cars tend to outperform slow cars. Just like marathon runners tend to run greater distances than couch potatoes. Statistics which show us these are reality, doesn't mean anything!

Now, if you wanted skinny people to be fatter, you would have them eat more, as opposed to putting fat people on a diet. If you want a slow car to perform better, it does no good to put sugar in the tank of the fast car. And if you want a couch potato to run a marathon, you have to get them off the couch and in some kind of training, hobbling the marathon runner will not make the couch potato better. You will never make poor people wealthy by making wealthy people poorer.

Yes, policies may seem to play favorites and give advantages to the wealthy, but this is because poor and middle-class people don't create jobs and opportunities for others, and wealthy people do. This isn't because wealthy people are better, or care more, it's because they have the means to finance large capitalist projects, and they can afford to take more risks. So we intentionally make policies which encourage these wealthy people to use their money for things that create jobs and opportunity. The thing is, whenever they do this, they generally make even more wealth.

 

[MikeK]

Mike, what you are espousing is Maoist philosophy[...]

If you believe that you are admitting you know nothing about the communist revolution in China and what Mao's intentions were.

I didn't say your suggestion would lead to the same thing as Mao, but I think Mao's suggestions were just as benign as yours in the beginning. [...]

Again, if you believe that I suggest you do some reading and educate yourself a bit. I recommend the following book to you: Red Star over China: The Classic Account of the Birth of Chinese Communism, by Edgar Snow and John King Fairbank (available from Amazon). Mao's intentions were quite clear from the very beginning and there was nothing benign about his disposition toward the rich. He thought of them as the cause of the Great Famine and all of its associated miseries and regarded them as enemies of the People.

I don't care that it wouldn't affect most Americans, I care that it would affect ONE American! Because what you are suggesting is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

So is slavery. But it wasn't always so.

Now, I don't know how else to put that, you are free to ignorantly believe otherwise, but "wealth" is owned personal property of the individual, just like their home, car, boat, or RV. The 4th Amendment PROHIBITS government from seizing your personal property. So, in order to make what you suggest happen, you need to repeal the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The Founders would not have supported you on this.

I urge you to bring this to the attention of the Internal Revenue Service as soon as possible. Because they have been seizing our property, right out of our paychecks, for as long as I can remember. Maybe they need someone with your wisdom to tell them they are not allowed to do that.

 

[itfitzme]

A view from the left flank of today's global class war:

"Let’s face it; the economy has never gotten better, not for working people at least. And now it’s getting worse; should we be surprised?

Not at all.

"The system is performing the way it’s set to perform; providing unlimited sums of money for speculators and moneybags friends of Obama, and table scraps for everyone else.

"Here’s a blurb from the Wall Street Journal that just confirms what everyone already knows:

“From 2009 to 2011, the average wealth of America’s richest 7% — the 8 million households with a net worth north of about $800,000 — rose nearly 30% to $3.2 million from $2.5 million, according to a Pew Research Center report that analyzed recent Census data.

"By contrast, the average wealth of America’s remaining 93%, some 111 million households, actually dropped by 4% to $134,000 from $140,000..."

"So all the money is going upwards, but we’re expected to believe that that’s not what policymakers had in mind to begin with; that it’s all just one big accident?"

What say the 1%ers and their wanna-bees?

Back to Recession » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Look, I don't know WHY this is such a hard concept for some people to grasp, but wealthy people tend to make wealth faster than poor people. Just like fat people tend to eat more than skinny people. Just like fast cars tend to outperform slow cars. Just like marathon runners tend to run greater distances than couch potatoes. Statistics which show us these are reality, doesn't mean anything!

Now, if you wanted skinny people to be fatter, you would have them eat more, as opposed to putting fat people on a diet. If you want a slow car to perform better, it does no good to put sugar in the tank of the fast car. And if you want a couch potato to run a marathon, you have to get them off the couch and in some kind of training, hobbling the marathon runner will not make the couch potato better. You will never make poor people wealthy by making wealthy people poorer.

Yes, policies may seem to play favorites and give advantages to the wealthy, but this is because poor and middle-class people don't create jobs and opportunities for others, and wealthy people do. This isn't because wealthy people are better, or care more, it's because they have the means to finance large capitalist projects, and they can afford to take more risks. So we intentionally make policies which encourage these wealthy people to use their money for things that create jobs and opportunity. The thing is, whenever they do this, they generally make even more wealth.

That is alot of false analogies.

I could make you skinnier by eating all your food.

 

[georgephillip]

A view from the left flank of today's global class war:

"Let’s face it; the economy has never gotten better, not for working people at least. And now it’s getting worse; should we be surprised?

Not at all.

"The system is performing the way it’s set to perform; providing unlimited sums of money for speculators and moneybags friends of Obama, and table scraps for everyone else.

"Here’s a blurb from the Wall Street Journal that just confirms what everyone already knows:

“From 2009 to 2011, the average wealth of America’s richest 7% — the 8 million households with a net worth north of about $800,000 — rose nearly 30% to $3.2 million from $2.5 million, according to a Pew Research Center report that analyzed recent Census data.

"By contrast, the average wealth of America’s remaining 93%, some 111 million households, actually dropped by 4% to $134,000 from $140,000..."

"So all the money is going upwards, but we’re expected to believe that that’s not what policymakers had in mind to begin with; that it’s all just one big accident?"

What say the 1%ers and their wanna-bees?

Back to Recession » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Look, I don't know WHY this is such a hard concept for some people to grasp, but wealthy people tend to make wealth faster than poor people. Just like fat people tend to eat more than skinny people. Just like fast cars tend to outperform slow cars. Just like marathon runners tend to run greater distances than couch potatoes. Statistics which show us these are reality, doesn't mean anything!

Now, if you wanted skinny people to be fatter, you would have them eat more, as opposed to putting fat people on a diet. If you want a slow car to perform better, it does no good to put sugar in the tank of the fast car. And if you want a couch potato to run a marathon, you have to get them off the couch and in some kind of training, hobbling the marathon runner will not make the couch potato better. You will never make poor people wealthy by making wealthy people poorer.

Yes, policies may seem to play favorites and give advantages to the wealthy, but this is because poor and middle-class people don't create jobs and opportunities for others, and wealthy people do. This isn't because wealthy people are better, or care more, it's because they have the means to finance large capitalist projects, and they can afford to take more risks. So we intentionally make policies which encourage these wealthy people to use their money for things that create jobs and opportunity. The thing is, whenever they do this, they generally make even more wealth.

Look closer:

"From 2009 to 2011, the average wealth of America’s richest 7% — the 8 million households with a net worth north of about $800,000 — rose nearly 30% to $3.2 million from $2.5 million, according to a Pew Research Center report that analyzed recent Census data. By contrast, the average wealth of America’s remaining 93%, some 111 million households, actually dropped by 4% to $134,000 from $140,000."

Is that an example of rich people running Brand Marathon Sweat Shops in India, Brazil, and China or does it have more to do with corrupt porkers injecting sugar into the election campaigns and retirements of DC couch potatoes?

Back to Recession » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[georgephillip]

"Have you seen this Bloomberg video of Nouriel Roubini explaining what we can expect when the sequester cuts kick in..."

“I’m quite concerned about the US economy. People underestimated how much…the sequester would effect the economy. …fiscal drag of 1.7%….We’re doing the wrong kind of fiscal consolidation. It’s way too frontloaded….will have a drag on consumption…so, US will have subpar growth, below trend..and unemployment will remain high. …

"The Fed’s QE has already created froth in asset and credit markets that could lead to another significant bubble …

"So, you’ll have a big party in asset prices for the next couple years, (while rates stay low) followed by a crash bigger than before.” (Bloomberg)

"Oh good.

"So the asset bubbles are already forming, but the economy is still flat on its back. So–chances are–we’ll suffer a meltdown before the anticipated recovery ever takes hold...''

"Let’s not kid ourselves, none of this is accidental.

"This whole permanent Depression-thing is just part of the plan."

Back to Recession » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Should the above come to pass, will you blame Democrats OR Republicans?

 

[MikeK]

Look, I don't know WHY this is such a hard concept for some people to grasp, but wealthy people tend to make wealth faster than poor people. Just like fat people tend to eat more than skinny people. Just like fast cars tend to outperform slow cars. Just like marathon runners tend to run greater distances than couch potatoes. Statistics which show us these are reality, doesn't mean anything!

[...]

It's not a hard concept to grasp. It's a flawed concept. Because it really isn't the people who generate the wealth, it's the national resources which certain individuals, such as Bill Gates, et. al., are fortunate enough to become involved with and manage to build on. The fact is the personal computer was a concept whose time had come. Bill Gates was in the right place at the right time. If he wasn't there you may rest assured someone else would have been.

The thing to keep in mind is it isn't likely what Gates did could have been done in any other country. What Gates, and Ford, and Edison, and other industrial icons did was exploit the material, administrative, and human resources of America. So it wasn't those individuals who created the wealth they accumulated, it was the businesses they were fortunate enough to be in the way of -- every one of which is a manifestation of America's vast resources.

But the Libertarian philosophy, which you are thoroughly indoctrinated with, holds that people like Bill Gates are responsible for America, rather than the other way around. And that is the flaw in your argument.

 

[georgephillip]

Look, I don't know WHY this is such a hard concept for some people to grasp, but wealthy people tend to make wealth faster than poor people. Just like fat people tend to eat more than skinny people. Just like fast cars tend to outperform slow cars. Just like marathon runners tend to run greater distances than couch potatoes. Statistics which show us these are reality, doesn't mean anything!

[...]

It's not a hard concept to grasp. It's a flawed concept. Because it really isn't the people who generate the wealth, it's the national resources which certain individuals, such as Bill Gates, et. al., are fortunate enough to become involved with and manage to build on. The fact is the personal computer was a concept whose time had come. Bill Gates was in the right place at the right time. If he wasn't there you may rest assured someone else would have been.

The thing to keep in mind is it isn't likely what Gates did could have been done in any other country. What Gates, and Ford, and Edison, and other industrial icons did was exploit the material, administrative, and human resources of America. So it wasn't those individuals who created the wealth they accumulated, it was the businesses they were fortunate enough to be in the way of -- every one of which is a manifestation of America's vast resources.

But the Libertarian philosophy, which you are thoroughly indoctrinated with, holds that people like Bill Gates are responsible for America, rather than the other way around. And that is the flaw in your argument.

Are you saying Bill didn't build it?

 

[MikeK]

[...]But FURTHERMORE... IF... IF... you were somehow able to bypass the Constitution and implement your idea, it would still fail miserably. The relatively small number of people who's incomes would be over $20 mil, would suddenly only report $19.9 mil incomes. When incomes approached the magic number, they would be deferred. Numerous options are available for this, and you could not close all the loopholes. If you attempted to do so, you would topple world markets and create a global financial crisis.

It is the existing financial machinations which nearly collapsed the U.S. Economy and are eminently capable of creating the global financial crisis you are concerned with. My recommendation tends to put an end to the finagling with one surgical motion -- that of excising the motivation to hoard.

Here's the thing you need to try and understand... You are Wyle E. Coyote, and the Capitalist Rich People, are The Roadrunner. Perhaps that's a simple enough way to explain it to you? No matter what you do, no matter what your plan is, the "Rich" are going to be one step ahead of you, that's how they got to be rich. You're not going to tax them more than they want to pay. You certainly aren't going to just confiscate their property. And all you are going to ever manage to do, is create more problems for yourself. Because, you see, the more you make it difficult for rich capitalists to engage in free market capitalist ventures, the more you stick a fork in our economic growth and prosperity. POOR fuckers don't create jobs! By setting a limit on the amount people can make, you essentially set a limit on the number of jobs created, and amount of economic prosperity that can be realized.

When Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon I fell into complete agreement with those who perceived that gesture as having ominous portent. It set a precedent which clearly emulates the Divine Right of Kings, the ultimate effect of which has been dilution of the fear of punishment by those who hold official office -- or by those who are wealthy enough to bribe those officials.

But my experience and observations enable me to assure you that making examples of individuals who are caught breaking or tweaking the rules, by slamming them with serious prison sentences, has a remarkably purifying effect on their contemporaries. In the simplest terms -- it scares the shit out of most of them, who immediately set themselves on the straight and narrow path.

If Ford had not pardoned Nixon I am certain the Bush cartel would not have risked the likely consequences for conspiring to launch an unnecessary invasion of a non-aggressive nation, for authorizing torture, for authorizing illegal wiretaps, and for a long list of other offenses against the reputation and integrity of the United States. But, as I'm sure you know, it is generally assumed today that no one with political power, or enough money to purchase it, goes to prison or suffers any serious form of punishment.

And therein lies the tale.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

for conspiring to launch an unnecessary invasion of a non-aggressive nation,

Iraq was non-aggressive?? It invaded Kuwait, Iran, openly supported Palestinian terrorism, had developed WMDS and used them, and was extremely aggressive and violent toward its own citizens!!

Slow much??? Let me guess, you're a libtard???? How did I know that??

 

[AmazonTania]

So, amazon, makes the really, really interesting statements below. Funny how hard this poor challenged person works at trying to change what I say. And how closely she stays alligned in all respects to the far, far right. So, lets start with this qoute from Amazon:

Why are you monologuing to yourself?

Uh, Amazon, my poor fact challenged tool, you may want to check your history. The clinton cap gain tax cuts did not go into effect until mid 1998. Must have been a phantom effect, eh, Amazon. Funny, same thing all of those bat shit crazy con web sites try. Move the time back a couple years. Why, by coincidence, their efforts to change history was JUST LIKE YOU, in this case.

According to the Tax Foundation, May 7th, 1997 is when the Capital Gains tax cut went into effect. Bad start for you already. But failure is something you are already use to, correct?

Federal Capital Gains Tax Rates, 1988-2011 | Tax Foundation

Again, you are looking at a boom that started WELL BEFORE THE CLINTON capital gains tax decreases took effect.

There was no boom before Clinton Capital Gains Tax Cut. The Dot Com Boom started in 1997 and the Capital Gains Tax Cut went into effect during the same Year. The Dow Jones went from 3241 on the day of Clinton's inauguration to 6843 in 5 years. That's more than 100% increase in 5 years, which is a very long time by today's standards. After the tax cut, the Dow went from 7085 to 11028 in only 3 short years after the tax cut.

The between 1993 and 1997, the Dow Jones was actually contracting and from February 1997 to May 1997, unemployment leveled at 5.3 - 5.2 percent. It wasn't until the capital gains tax was implemented on May 7th that the economy really took off. Notice the divergence:

And I think it goes without saying that before the tax cut was implemented, It took four the unemployment rate to get from 7.5% to 6%. That's 1 full percent every 4 year average. AFTER the tax cut, the unemployment rate moved from 5% to 4% in only a short year.

Sorry, but realty disagrees with you.

So, me poor ignorant money changer. You are proving, in your own mind, that decreasing a tax, in this case cap gains, makes the economy better. While it may have had some small impact it was very very little, again, except in the minds of those of the bat shit crazy con web sites out there. And they ALL say that the deficits at this time were due to the decrease in cap gains taxes that caused the deficit, not the stimulative spending earlier. If you can find another source that agrees that the cap gains any big difference, lets see the quote. Funny, though, not being a con, that you pick up their dogma. But I am sure you are no con. Even though if you simply google "clinton's capital gains tax cuts " you wil see two pages of hits that are all right wing bat shit crazy web sites that suggest what you suggest. Again, I am sure you are not getting the above information from those sources. You would not be a con, now would you, Amazon. I mean, you said you are not. So.....
But here is the thing, me ignorant money changer. Now, see if you can pay attention. I said lowering taxes in a BAD economic time characterized by high ue. Now, here is the issue. The ue when clinton did the cap gains tax reduction the ue rate was (now pay attention, Amazon) UNDER 5%. Which then, you see, should you be able to follow this, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOWERING TAXES DURING TIMES OF HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT. And, should you have been able to read, you would have seen that I said there is absolutely NO PROBLEM with decreasing taxes during good economic times. Has been done, you see, by presidents of both parties throughout the history of our economy. Generally with good results.

I'm not going to read more of your badly constructed sentences. All I understood was Clinton Capital Gains, Unemployment and bad economic times. I already refuted your capital gains nonsense. The rest you will see in a bit.

So, nice try. But a swing and a miss. Which is why it is always a good idea to stay out of those bat shit crazy con sites. Here is a really nice site to check monthly ue rates. Maybe it will help you stop that anoying habit of lying.
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States

What a joke. I love the fact that you go to a personal website instead of the BLS for actual unemployment data. This is really what I deal with when I visit this forum.

Hey, according to our own website 5% unemployment is not low. If anything, it's average. The lowest average unemployment was 2% and the highest average was 9%. I'm assuming you can do basic math. Then you'll understand the difference between low unemployment and just, eh, average.

Wow. So the initial tax decreases everyone saw, in 1981, according to you did not happen. Really, Amazon? I provided a sourse for you below, just to help you out. If you look, the upper tax rate dropped by 20%. That makes you not just a liar, but a really obvious liar.
The tax decrease of 86 was done during good economic times. After 11 tax increases and borrowing enough to triple the national debt. So, no one, and certainly not I, said anything was wrong with decreasing taxes in 1986.

You said this:

So, that showed no improvement. What showed improvement was stimulus spending from tax increases and borrowing. And, by the way, I do not suggest that was a bad thing.

The major increases happened BEFORE the unemployment rate got worse. The tax increases which Reagan implemented didn't help unemployment at all. According to the US Treasury, the tax increases were too small to even play a significant role in GDP. The only major tax bill which had a significant effect on the economy was the Tax Reform Act of 1986. And you can clearly see the impact from this chart I created...

As you can see, taxes increased, but so did unemployment. The interest rates increasing didn't help the situation either. Unemployment shrank only due to the fact that people were leaving the labour force, as ou have learned already:

(Unemployed Workers / Total Labor Force) * 100 = Unemployment Rate

Again, pay close attention to the divergence.

The labour force participation rate was stagnant at 7.5%, until the Tax Reform Act was passed, the people started to enter the labour force again. It wasn't due to any sort of tax increases or stimulus or any nonsense of that sort.

By about another 15%. It only really screwed bush 1 a couple years later.

If by 'screw up' you mean ruin his reelection chances by increasing taxes, after this famous promise "Read my lips: I will not raise taxes," mantra. Demonstrating the benefits of public school, history education I see... Goes well, along with your atrocious English.

And, me poor ignorant money changer, spending money on tanks and bombs DOES INDEED STIMULATE THE ECONOMY. Check minor things like what happened during WWII. Ever here of the military industrial complex. They make things, they hire people, etc, etc.
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxf...ocs/fed_rates_history_nominal_1913_2013_0.pdf

No, that's not what happened. All that happened was spending was reallocated from the economy to the war effort. And FDR took all of the unemployed civilians and drafted them. The war never stimulated the economy. In fact, if your take out the economy effect the war had, the Great Depression didn't end until 1949. Right after the war the economy slipped into another recession which lasted for 8 months.

But how could you have learned this by studying in modern day equivalent of an indoctrination camp?

Military spending never stimulates the economy. Otherwise, we have the greatest economy on earth right now and Bush probably would have had the greatest economy in history.

Then, I said:
"Did you believe that you read me suggest that raising taxes would cause a better economy? You did not, but nice try. A lie."
To which you said:


Maybe your problem here is just an inability to understand the kings english.

No, Kings are usually educated individuals and they have far better grammar skills. You just fail at the English language.

JESUS. No, you did NOT show a time when lowering taxes during high ue helped the economy. Because at the time the ue was LOW. Check out the link I provided you above.

Unemployment was 5.5%. That's not low. That's average. Low Unemployment is anywhere from 2 - 4% because that is below average. After the Capital Gains tax cut, unemployment moved from 5% to 4%, below average. Capital gains moved an economy to somewhat average unemployment to below average unemployment, as I have already demonstrated with my chart.

And, again you try to make the connection that the economic success of the late 1990's was the result of cap gains tax decreases. Which did not happen until 1998. Well after the economy was souring. But nice try to make it 1996.

Again, the Boom started in 1997. And the Tax Cut happened in 1997. Please, stop making things up:

The dot-com bubble (also referred to as the dot-com boom, the Internet bubble and the Information Technology Bubble[1]) was a historic speculative bubble covering roughly 1997–2000 (with a climax on March 10, 2000, with the NASDAQ peaking at 5132.52 in intraday trading before closing at 5048.62) during which stock markets in industrialized nations saw their equity value rise rapidly from growth in the Internet sector and related fields.

Dot-com bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which many of the bat shit crazy con web sites also try. But it was, me poor truth challenged money changer, 1998.
So, you need to try to keep your facts straight, and provide accurate data. And look at what I said rather than what you would like to say I said. A little integrity goes a long way.

All my sources come from the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and The Tax Foundation. your only source regarding unemployment came from a personal website, which refutes your own rhetoric. Talk about pathetic.

Ah, now it is poorly phrased sentences. Funny, amazon. What I said was clear. Which was, again, that during times of high unemployment, lowering taxes has never helped. Is that too complex for you to understand. So, you did not refute what I said. You completely failed to do so. And yes, indeed, you did twist in the wind trying to do so. Funny.

It wasn't my job to do that. My original intent was to show that tax cuts were stimulative, not tax increases. If anything, I have already show that tax cuts decreases unemployment again with my example with Reagan and once again with my Clinton example.

What is funny is that you think you actually refuted what I said simply by Googling a couple of things and making things up in that empty space you called a mind. I study and research economics and finance FOR A LIVING. You just dabble and experiment with it when you're trying to one-up some other loser online with your subpar knowledge and understanding. You're simple not on the same level as me, and you were better off throwing insults as a form of coherent thought.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Confused about Wall Street's War on Terror profits?
Consult your breathless broker.

You made the claim, I'm consulting you.

Maybe you should get a little closer to the profits, Patriot?

"The war on Afghanistan is part of a profit driven agenda: a war of economic conquest and plunder, ”a resource war”.

"While Afghanistan is acknowledged as a strategic hub in Central Asia, bordering on the former Soviet Union, China and Iran, at the crossroads of pipeline routes and major oil and gas reserves, its huge mineral wealth as well as its untapped natural gas reserves have remained, until June 2010, totally unknown to the American public.

"According to a joint report by the Pentagon, the US Geological Survey (USGS) and USAID, Afghanistan is now said to possess 'previously unknown' and untapped mineral reserves, estimated authoritatively to be of the order of one trillion dollars (New York Times, U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan – NYTimes.com, June 14, 2010, See also BBC, 14 June 2010)."

?The War is Worth Waging?: Afghanistan?s Vast Reserves of Minerals and Natural Gas | Global Research

"The war on Afghanistan is part of a profit driven agenda: a war of economic conquest and plunder, ”a resource war”.

Yeah, we tricked Osama into attacking us so we could take over Afghanistan's minerals. LOL!

Boy, you are stupid.

 

[Boss]

A view from the left flank of today's global class war:

"Let’s face it; the economy has never gotten better, not for working people at least. And now it’s getting worse; should we be surprised?

Not at all.

"The system is performing the way it’s set to perform; providing unlimited sums of money for speculators and moneybags friends of Obama, and table scraps for everyone else.

"Here’s a blurb from the Wall Street Journal that just confirms what everyone already knows:

“From 2009 to 2011, the average wealth of America’s richest 7% — the 8 million households with a net worth north of about $800,000 — rose nearly 30% to $3.2 million from $2.5 million, according to a Pew Research Center report that analyzed recent Census data.

"By contrast, the average wealth of America’s remaining 93%, some 111 million households, actually dropped by 4% to $134,000 from $140,000..."

"So all the money is going upwards, but we’re expected to believe that that’s not what policymakers had in mind to begin with; that it’s all just one big accident?"

What say the 1%ers and their wanna-bees?

Back to Recession » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Look, I don't know WHY this is such a hard concept for some people to grasp, but wealthy people tend to make wealth faster than poor people. Just like fat people tend to eat more than skinny people. Just like fast cars tend to outperform slow cars. Just like marathon runners tend to run greater distances than couch potatoes. Statistics which show us these are reality, doesn't mean anything!

Now, if you wanted skinny people to be fatter, you would have them eat more, as opposed to putting fat people on a diet. If you want a slow car to perform better, it does no good to put sugar in the tank of the fast car. And if you want a couch potato to run a marathon, you have to get them off the couch and in some kind of training, hobbling the marathon runner will not make the couch potato better. You will never make poor people wealthy by making wealthy people poorer.

Yes, policies may seem to play favorites and give advantages to the wealthy, but this is because poor and middle-class people don't create jobs and opportunities for others, and wealthy people do. This isn't because wealthy people are better, or care more, it's because they have the means to finance large capitalist projects, and they can afford to take more risks. So we intentionally make policies which encourage these wealthy people to use their money for things that create jobs and opportunity. The thing is, whenever they do this, they generally make even more wealth.

Look closer:

"From 2009 to 2011, the average wealth of America’s richest 7% — the 8 million households with a net worth north of about $800,000 — rose nearly 30% to $3.2 million from $2.5 million, according to a Pew Research Center report that analyzed recent Census data. By contrast, the average wealth of America’s remaining 93%, some 111 million households, actually dropped by 4% to $134,000 from $140,000."

Is that an example of rich people running Brand Marathon Sweat Shops in India, Brazil, and China or does it have more to do with corrupt porkers injecting sugar into the election campaigns and retirements of DC couch potatoes?

Back to Recession » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

It has more to do with capitalists outsourcing union jobs more than anything else. This is a result of 40-50 years of liberal pro-labor-union policies, and is exactly what conservatives back in the day, warned would happen. They were hooted down by liberals who were having none of it, and insisted we had to "support the union label" and that's what we did. Now that the jobs are gone, we are left with a bunch of lower-paying jobs, which pulls the average down. The answer here is not more Socialism or Marxism. That is what caused the problem with outsourcing. What needs to be done, is to implement policies favorable to capitalism. Reduce or eliminate corporate taxation, get rid of capital gains taxes, and encourage rich people to spend the hell out of their money, rather than hoard it away in securities or offshore accounts. Offer incentives for American companies who opt to create jobs here rather than outsource, and stop biting the hand that feeds us.

Again, the statistics you are showing me are not alarming or surprising, it's the result of failed Socialist policies that did not work, and you want to implement MORE of the same.

 

[itfitzme]

It wasn't my job to do that. My original intent was to show that tax cuts were stimulative, not tax increases. If anything, I have already show that tax cuts decreases unemployment again with my example with Reagan and once again with my Clinton example.*

The problem is that your reasoning is flawd from the outset. *This is unfortunate because you have invested comsiderable time and effort in your data and presentation.

Regardless of whether your challenger is rigjt or wrong is immaterial as your reasoning stands on it's own.

Here is the problem.

The government fiscal policy consists of both taxes and spending. *There are also monetary policy and the free-market performance happening simultaneously. Even ignoring the latter two, it is required that both taxes and spending be accounted for.

Your method is to state that spending has no effect then to move on to taxes. Unfortunately, in order to do that you must first prove that spending has no effect. *You haven't and because you haven't, everything else that follow is meaningless.

The big issue her is that it has been shown in peer reviewed scientific empirical econometric papers, repeatedly, that the spending multiplier is about 1.5 , ceterus paribus.*

As well, the tax multiplier has also been determined *in empirical studies.

All relevant studies have validated that the theory which relates the spending and tax multipliers is reasonably valid.

Now, in practice, there is great variability in both multipliera as the economy goes through the business cycle.*

Never the less, the fact remains that you buipd from thw assunption that there is no spending multiplier. You are incorrect, have not proven that you are correct and cannot do so because experts far smarter that both you and I combined have already proven otherwise.

 

[Boss]

Look, I don't know WHY this is such a hard concept for some people to grasp, but wealthy people tend to make wealth faster than poor people. Just like fat people tend to eat more than skinny people. Just like fast cars tend to outperform slow cars. Just like marathon runners tend to run greater distances than couch potatoes. Statistics which show us these are reality, doesn't mean anything!

[...]

It's not a hard concept to grasp. It's a flawed concept. Because it really isn't the people who generate the wealth, it's the national resources which certain individuals, such as Bill Gates, et. al., are fortunate enough to become involved with and manage to build on. The fact is the personal computer was a concept whose time had come. Bill Gates was in the right place at the right time. If he wasn't there you may rest assured someone else would have been.

The thing to keep in mind is it isn't likely what Gates did could have been done in any other country. What Gates, and Ford, and Edison, and other industrial icons did was exploit the material, administrative, and human resources of America. So it wasn't those individuals who created the wealth they accumulated, it was the businesses they were fortunate enough to be in the way of -- every one of which is a manifestation of America's vast resources.

But the Libertarian philosophy, which you are thoroughly indoctrinated with, holds that people like Bill Gates are responsible for America, rather than the other way around. And that is the flaw in your argument.

Don't know how old you are, but other people WERE there! Before Bill Gates, there were at least a half dozen companies producing both computers for home use, and operating systems. Gates developed a stable user-friendly OS that more consumers liked, than what was available from competitors, and this is how free market capitalism works. Bill Gates didn't invent computers, or operating systems, he had a lot of competition from some pretty big players, but he had a product that was superior and the consumer responded.

Want another great example of free market capitalism and computers? How about Apple? Here is a company who was looking at Gates superior OS, hooking up with IBM's platform... they were literally on the cusp of being rendered obsolete, much like Beta was killed by VHS, or 8-tracks were killed by cassettes. Steve Jobs brilliantly changed the marketing strategy of his company, focused on educational use as opposed to business, offered a viable alternative to the PC and Windows, and found a niche for his product. He wasn't the only company trying to compete with IBM and Microsoft, there were dozens.

Gates and Jobs did not have some "special" advantage over everyone else. They weren't born with silver spoons in their mouth, or an unlimited supply of wealth and/or power, and they didn't screw people over to achieve success. They did not depend on the government to subsidize them, and they started with a shoestring budget from the proverbial basement. If nothing else, these two men PROVE that ANY American has the capability to become wealthy and successful in the free market capitalist system.

Why would we ever want to destroy such a system?

 

[AmazonTania]

The problem is that your reasoning is flawd from the outset. *This is unfortunate because you have invested comsiderable time and effort in your data and presentation.

Regardless of whether your challenger is rigjt or wrong is immaterial as your reasoning stands on it's own.

Here is the problem.

The government fiscal policy consists of both taxes and spending. *There are also monetary policy and the free-market performance happening simultaneously. Even ignoring the latter two, it is required that both taxes and spending be accounted for.

Your method is to state that spending has no effect then to move on to taxes. Unfortunately, in order to do that you must first prove that spending has no effect. *You haven't and because you haven't, everything else that follow is meaningless.

Says who?

The big issue her is that it has been shown in peer reviewed scientific empirical econometric papers, repeatedly, that the spending multiplier is about 1.5 , ceterus paribus.*

As well, the tax multiplier has also been determined *in empirical studies.

All relevant studies have validated that the theory which relates the spending and tax multipliers is reasonably valid.

Now, in practice, there is great variability in both multipliera as the economy goes through the business cycle.*

Never the less, the fact remains that you buipd from thw assunption that there is no spending multiplier. You are incorrect, have not proven that you are correct and cannot do so because experts far smarter that both you and I combined have already proven otherwise.

Show me where I said spending has no multiplier.