Do me a favor, expand your research to the last 100 years of tax rates for the top 1% and come back and tell us how the economy fared during the low times and the high times

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n...epression.html

Raising the tax for the top people had no help for the economy, in fact, lowering it had a positive impact after 1963 when it got lowered from 88 to 70%

Maybe if Obama was less of a lying scumbag?

Sally.

Which is still double what it is today...and it had a reason to be that high and come down. In the last 30 years though we can look and compare the rates, they are within a small range of each other. We know that cutting it to low sky rockets the deficit and doesn't actually spark investing/corp growth when the benefit is at the person level and to high can stall personal/corp economic growth all together. Which isn't were we are at today, at all.

Great article on UK Firms... however in America with our personal tax rates, tax system and setup, things worked out a bit differently. That's the American History that was shared with you.

You asked for proof, it was provided... Lowering taxes did not spark economic growth, it did not spark new found investments, job growth, etc. The rich saved the money for a rainy day - I don't discredit that it's a good thing to save money, I'm sure some use it too - I did however provide proof that them saving does not equal growth in the areas you stated.

And again, I'm not saying it's not a good thing but I am saying it doesn't create the one sided benefits you appear it to create.

P.S. I don't care about your fake economic studies.

You mean like the 3 trillion dollars Barry spent without caring where the money went?
It's really helped the economy and job growth hasn't it?
So now he want to raise their taxes to pay for his fuck up
from 1963 on, the top rate payers had some relief and it worked out pretty good for this country, are you denying that?

You are angry :(

I understand. I wouldn't like being compared to The Demon either.

you will always find data to back up your opinion because there is always a pro and a con viewpoint...

we are going through something that has never been seen before and you knuckleheads are looking at solutions of the past..

this is the same reason why bernanke and paulson were/are such idiots.. they are using economic principles of the early 1900's to restart the economy...

i have changed my mind about a double dip though and dont think we will see it. i think we will see the economy remain unchanged for the next 10 years and unemployment will remain the same...

like i said before, i hope the republicans take control in november, so all you monkeys can see that it wont make a difference.. of course you will still blame it all on obama and even if a republican gets elected and the end of his 1st term, you will be blaming him when your new chief cant get the job done...

at least you guys are providing a great laugh...




.

As pointed out many times now Obama has not spent 3 trillion dollars. You and nobody here can show were Obama himself spent 3 trillion dollars. BTW, I want to see what he spent it on, not an article saying he spent it. I know were the 3-t came from, and it wasn't Obama that did it.

The 400b Obama has spent with the stimulus on the eco/job growth, state funded things, teachers, police, fire, etc - yes, it greatly helped and is without question. Did it sky rocket/change, turn us completely around. No - but it damn sure helped in other areas.

No, he wants to raise the taxes because it didn't spark economic growth, it increased the deficit, and years and years and years of wars has to be paid for, just like when the tax rate was 88% or whatever. Be glad though he isn't increasing taxes, just removing a tax break that didn't work.

The tax rate in 1963 was 91% in 75 it was 70% in 93-2000 it was 39%. I would say 39% seems to be a pretty damn good to me, yes..

the guy with the blood splattered all over his face is making the most sense....I think its time for me to go home...

Never said you claimed to like war, and I don't have to go far to find where you talk about the war, in fact you do that in this very post.

Yes you have bitched many times about there still being troops over there, I'll stand right next to you and bitch about that. Where we disagree is who/what you blame for the troops still being there. Again, who sent us to war in multiple countries at once? Was it Obama or Bush?

At least Obama has set into motion the plan of action to bring them home, if McCain had won, we'd have more then triple that number of troops over there. That was his plan as he stated during his campaign.

When did the democrats take over the house... according to you it was in 2006. Gas prices skyrocketed in the yrs preceding that, based on the simple logic of the following, if the Dems took over in 06, then before 06 it was the Republicans in charge.

Do you remember the Economy under Clinton.. it was booming, national deficit was at a all time low. Republicans bitched because they felt we had a weak military, and yes I know Clinton cut way back on military budgets and so forth. Bush jr comes in and starts to build the military back up, re-directing as many funds towards that as he can scam. And to show the world we are still have the military might to match our swagger he does what?

Oh yeah, sends us into multiple wars where we get our ass's handed to us, both over there and here at home. The economy has been in decline since we invaded.

Now, what does the war have to do with the economy? 1st, is that a actual serious question or is my sarcasm meter broken today?

Maybe the 7 trillion+ we have spent moving sand from one pile to another

yeah we did pretty good in 93-2000, but we had a balanced budget for most of that thanx to the contract to America
Too bad Barry doesn't do history
As far as what Barry has spent, please tell me how the federal deficit is now

US Federal Deficit As Percent Of GDP
Fiscal Years 2000 to 2010
GDP in Billion Federal Deficit -fed pct GDP
2000 9951.5 -2.37
2001 10286.2 -1.25
2002 10642.3 1.48
2003 11142.1 3.39
2004 11867.8 3.48
2005 12638.4 2.52
2006 13398.9 1.85
2007 14077.6 1.14
2008 14441.4 3.18
2009 14258.2 9.91
2010 14623.9 10.64
Source; http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...cit_chart.html

BTW, calling it raiseing the taxes or just not extending them, what's really the difference? They are going to pay more

fiddy lets Blame Obama on everything as usual threads by Vendzilla

In my opinion some of the primary long term cures for our current economic position is to reduce spending in pretty much every government agency that exists (via budget cuts and or personell cuts) combined with a tax increase...be it via allowing the Bush cuts to expire or otherwise...combined with an absolute pay as you go law in place for any new future programs/spending. If this were to be done it just might prevent total economic collapse...which I think will happen in ten years or so without drastic measures...such as I have outlined above.

Our past history indicates that neither party is willing to do this...and in fact both party's do the opposite...as both increase the size of government and spending...so I predict a very bad end for the country.

The jump you see is from the 1.3ish trillion in bailouts Bush put in before he left office and money that was dished out while Obama was president. Then it takes about 800b-1t a year to run the Country. Then he corrected how/where Bush put the war money so it was fairly on the books, couple trillion here as well. Then we have the Obama 800b/400b spent on the stimulus.

Why not just call them a mistake? That's what it really was after all. So rather than saying we're raising taxes, why not just tell the truth and say we're reversing the mistakes of the previous President?

I blame Bush for sending them there, USSR tried to take Afghanistan and it didn't work, why should we try? I was in the gulf in 1980, why would I want to send anyone else
Sorry, At least isn't good enough and we will never know about what McCain would have done, so why does it matter?
http://66.70.86.64/ChartServer/ch.ga...,,&Unit=US $/G
Remember when the prices hit $5 a gallon

I was pretty happy for the most part during the Clinton years, after the house and senate came under control of the GOP, they balanced the budget
I just remember that Barry promised more troops to go to Afghanistan during his campaign and I wondered why anyone would vote yes to that?

seriously. i don't even get why we're still talking about it after most of this decade

I blame this on government as a whole, not just Obama, I blame Obama for not doing anything good to fix it. Raising taxes on the wealthy is not going to fix anything.
Now he wants to add poll workers on voting day to help the unemployment numbers

Why don't rename it to a thread by by a fucking idiot from another country trying to make silly comments on something he doesn't understand?

Exactly, we need to reduce costs, just raising the taxes will add more costs, the government will some how just soak that all up. Until they get it thru their thick skulls that we need to cut costs, we will never get thru this

Obama has done plenty of good, expecting everything he does to be the answer is impossible. No president, you'll ever have will do everything perfectly, as history has proven. You may want to lower your expectations a bit. What you don't do though is keep doing what isn't working, ie: tax cuts that don't work. You can't correct things by ignoring problems.

Poll workers having to file taxes at the end of the year probably isn't going to help with Nov's job numbers, but it does make for some good political trash talk.

You gotta love the stupidity of the Doc. He proves it each time he argues with his superiors regarding subjects outside his element. Instead of admitting he's wrong and learning something new, he claims the studies are fake. What a moron rofl. Don't think I've ever talked to someone so much in denial. I've proven my point, keep embarrassing yourself Doc:1orglaugh

Yeah, Clinton added the military to the numbers and I'm sure others have tweaked it as well.
All I ever hear from Obama is blame and it's only been 2 years, when I know the democrats have been in control for 4 years. I want a balance, why, because it worked during the Clinton years, shit got done. Having the democrats in charge or the GOP in charge has proven in recent DECADES doesn't work so well

Umm... You're the one that asked for proof from marketsmart, I provided it - which you quickly denied. Hello, pot calling the kettle black or you're just stupid, I'm going with stupid.

Your reading skills suck, I never claimed what you posted was fake, I actually said "Great article on UK Firms" and it was.

However I did call you a fake, and you are.

Uh, while a new economic model is definitely beneficial, theoretically certain principles would ensure this doesn't happen. And this isn't something completely new, it's a mixture of economic flaws of the past century. The only knucklehead here is the one pretending to understand any of this (you).

Volcker was the last FED Chairman to know what he's doing.

LOL. And you're laughing at everybody else. Definitely humorous.

You're wasting your time. When you're arguing with someone borderline retarded, that person is too stupid to understand when he's wrong so he's going to keep on posting. It's certainly humorous but you shouldn't take him too seriously.

The economy was improving before the GOP took over... employment was dropping before and the gdp was increasing. I'll admit it really took off afterward, but it wasn't like it was going down hill before. They had good shit to work with and they worked with it, everyone did.

lol, we were never in a depression, you better hope we never fall into one.

First off little stain, we aren't arguing... when adults talk, it's called a discussion. Sadly, when you open your mouth, we call it spew.

Now take your fake little surfer ass and get back to the job hunt at the local taco stands, surfering gfy for porn to bait to isn't going to get you off government assistance and out of your moms house any faster.

I'll let you get back to the little fantasy island between your ears now.

Newt had a plan, and I hope the new congress coming in has one as well, we need it.

Funny thing is people think because I hate the Barry, that I'm for the GOP? They fucked things up, I'm just not going to back a party because it's the lesser of two evils, sorry, something better has to be done. Right now, to change things, we need the balance of the GOP and the Democrats, and that means getting control of congress by the GOP. The Tea Party has really stepped up and those that bad mouth them forget that's what started the revolution of this country in the first place, to put them down, is putting down the very base of this country. Maybe those people think we would have been better off under control of the King?

Unemployment is a lagging indicator, but it is the most noticeable indicator to the general populous. Therefore, most people will think that its impossible!! for the recession to be over because what they "see" is lagging indicators. It's all about asymmetrical information and the propensity for myopic beliefs (over-weighting the present relative to the future)

Balance is going to come back... it always does, then it will swing one way heavy and start all over again.

If the tea party members really wanted to rebuild the foundation of the country, get back to the roots, reduce gov, put things how it it's written - then they would all support Ron Paul rather than ignore him. Just the fact that they ignore him is ALL the proof that I need that it's complete bullshit.

The only way this Country will EVER change, is when the people rise up. Until then everything we see is 100% political bullshit with a different hat on it.

Vendzilla, it's all a charade. There is no two party system. There is a one party system. A two headed snake.

A revolution in your country is the least possible of any country worldwide.

The two party system works great though, because it pits half your country against the other half, pretty much ensuring that the public will never unite into any one idea with enough strength to topple the "King".

Would any company in the world give up control and ownership every 4 years because their employees said so?

It just doesn't make sense.

This is why my taxes go to people like the doc. Poor, unemployed, mentally retarded. I'm helping you out here doc. We all laugh anytime you post and we're laughing now. Nobody here cares anything you have to post so please, continue. Btw, LOL@fake economics studies. Gotta love the morons who join this industry because they're too stupid to do anything else.:1orglaugh

Unemployment, average work week, corporate cash balance sheets, etc.

Ron Paul had a few ideas that people just wouldn't get behind, it would be a harder sell than what they are doing right now, what I don't agree with is the Social conservative push they are doing

I've said this many times on this forum, we need to get rid of the two party system, I had high hopes when Ross Perot ran for office, that was a big let down

If Obama, or any president ever, came out and said that they are going to let tax cuts expire or even raise taxes further, but at the same time he will massively cut government spending I would respect that even though I do not think raising taxes is the answer.

Hahaha, oh shit that's funny, pretending you have a job now, haha. Come on lame boy, now you have a job that lets you post all day long, weekends, weeknights, etc? Do you do this job between your law or international economic studies? HAHAHAHA... what a poser.

Again, idiot... I never said anything about fake economic studies, you need to seriously pull your head out of your ass, wipe the shit from eyes and read again.

I would agree with that as well, but I don't see Barry cutting anything unless he's forced too

I wonder if gates and buffett made a party and promised to "not be evil" and put smart non-politicians to work... if they could win the US election.

I think they'd get a lot of votes.. A lot.

http://givingpledge.org/#enter

Awww what's the matter doc? Too stupid to keep up? Like I said, I have fun embarrassing low class morons twice my age and half my IQ.:1orglaugh