Kennedy went too far and upset the owners of this country with giving back too much power to the American people. They assassinated him when he finally went too far by phasing out the federal reserve. This took the power of issuing money from a private entity (all the major banks of the world) and back to the responsibility of congress.
@MrTabby5000 The tax cuts did NOT cause the real estate bubble. The tax cuts did NOT cause energy prices to skyrocket. The tax cuts did NOT lead people to be wiser with their extra money - they simply spent it (and more - just look at personal consumer debt).
The economy collapsed do to the fact that to much money was spent on things that could have waited. If we had worked to pay off the national debt instead of buying stuff, we would be just fine. The tax cuts were working.
Yes, we collapsed because we spent money on programs that did not matter. That caused the debt to skyrocket and the recession to begin. The tax cuts were working.
You are not listening. The tax cuts gave more money to the people and less to the government. The government spent that money unwisely. that is what caused us to collapse.
JFK was a true bluedog dem! If he were alive today, no doubt he'd give Patrick a good smack across his socialist chops. Go Scott! Keep economic sanity in govt.
The top Personal and Corporate tax rates were VASTLY higher back in 1960! To simply say they should be cut under any circumstances ingores the unique state of the economy and the nation at any given time. We had a huge debt, two wars -largley unfunded and a expensive perscription drug plan and already had an upper class tax cut in the last 8 years, we need to shrink W's deficit and that requires tax revenue.
less taxes creates jobs dude...when people have the money, they spend it on goods and services which creates jobs, which is why when Bush, senior went back on his famous no new taxes pledge years ago and raised taxes, the economy slumped because no one had any money to spend on goods and services...
Funny how Republcans have to identify with Democrats to win an election since there are no republicans that have ever done anything for the middle class. Then they add phony patriotism even when they have been draft-dodgers and the rednecks lap it up. Because there is a hidden message...NO BLACKS ALLOWED.
DUDE, you are an idiot and a racist yourself. Modern Democrats support Affiramtive Action policies which institutes Reverse Discrimintion against the white majority, keeping folks like me unemployed and unhappy....Obama is the most vicious racist going and not many people realize it. JFK's tax cuts were in keeping with Ronald Reagan's tax cuts and George W. Bush's tax cuts...you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to realize that.
I can't decide whether he's as handsome as JFK. I wonder what the poll numbers say. If 51% say he's more handsome, I think we should replace Obama with him. WAIT, we haven't seen him with his shirt off. Why isn't People Magazine on top of this?
Democrats and Republicans are just differnet sides of the same coin. If you want "Change", try doing the opposite of what the Wall Street owned media tells you to do. -By the way, does anyone know if Britney Spears had her breasts lifted?
speaking of campaign financing, I"m running for congress and accepting NO DONATIONS from anywhere. My videos are low budget (no budget) and explain how this should be done. I'd be much obliged if you would critique them.
What happend is all the liberals entitlement programs zapped all the money out of the standard of living for the Middle class. the Liberals Taxed and Spent our nation into poverty
Reaganomics bankrupted America. Since Reagan,the federal govt. has raided Social Security to pay for the Republicans profligate spending. It used pay for itself, but now it is being pillaged to pay for tax cuts for the super wealthy & the cons attack SS for not being solvent.
Bush43's unpaid mandate to ruin Medicare in 2003 with part D forces seniors to pay for coverage that they already paid for before they retired. It's nothing but a ripoff: big money for insurance companies & Big pharma.
Nation has 15.6 million unemployed let's f*%K around and spend a year debating healthcare when we could be addressing the economy and putting people back to work. Oh yea and let's FORCE uneployed people to pay for health insurance even though they are in foreclosure and can't find work DUHHHHHHH! What a bunch of "stupid" reprensentatives we have in DC. I say vote out anyone who has a link to special interests and over 2 terms-CLEAN HOUSE>>>UMMM I MEAN HOUSES! lol
THIS is what the SCOTUS decision means in the REAL WORLD. Leftist politicians who have demonized Corporations no longer have a MONOPOLY on political speech,Leftist Politicians who have made Energy Corporations their whipping boy NO LONGER have a free pass. Leftist Politicians NOW will reap VERY REAL CONSEQUENCES for their Poltical Speech Against Corporations. CAPITALAISM is alive and well in the USA. Because they now have Free and Unfettered POLITICAL SPEECH to adress those who attack them.
Obama,Obama-Care,Nanny Pelosi,Scarey Ried, all the leftist stooges and Usefull idiots wich comprise the leftist Liberal/Democrat/Marxist/Progressive Establsihment and machine have been Thuroughly and Gloriously
TEA-BAGGED....HARD
Congratulations SENATOR ELECT BROWN,Good for Massachusetts,Good For America,Good for Liberty,Good for TEA-BAGGERS...Sweeeeet. God Bless.
This guy is a prick ... He potrays himself as a new JFK ,but in reality he is planning to KILL something that Ted Kennedy JFK's dedicated his life to fighting for. Also everyone knows if JFK & RFK were alive they wouild NOT be supporting this guy ,but would be as dedicated to fighting for healthcare as much as Ted was. This AD is a sign of direct disrespect to the entire Kennedy family. Also let's be really we are facing totally different problems today then we did 40 years ago.
JFK would never have supported the government takeover of healthcare farce that teddy proposed. You would have run JFK out of office as a fanatical right winger if he were around today.
Teddy got a break from being waterboarded in hell, just long enough to see his seat go to a republican. Now, Mary jo Kopechne has him back on the table.
pimpdalyrical, once again you couldn't be more wrong,
Please watch the You Tube videos "JOHN F. KENNEDY at MADISON SQUARE GARDEN" parts 1&2 if you really want to know what JFK's position on healthcare was. It is an implicit argument for national healthcare insurance and it is one of his greatest speeches.
It is not possible to watch this speech without being convinced that he was a great liberal and it is one of the reasons why he is the hero of liberal Democrats everywhere.
Mr. Boffo, did you miss the part in Kennedy's speech where he tells the audience to dismiss the Englishman who will tell them that the English helathcare system doesn't work. Did you not hear Kennedy reassure those people that English healthcare was failing because it was a cradle to grave government program?
Not only do Obama and the libs not other to make that distinction anymore, but the people are smart enough now to know better. We know the socialist agenda behind his facade.
Wow they found an English doctor who's in it for the $
63% of doctors in this country support the public option because they experience first hand the corruption of our health system.
The best way for a PM to get removed from office in England is to cut funding to the NHS. That's why Maggie Thatcher was removed from office by her own party in 1990, the Conservative Party. After all the disingenuous rhetoric from the right, even conservatives support health care reform when they get the facts.
No, 63% of doctors do not support a Public Option. Your sources are biased. What they support is an extension of medicare for unemployment. This sham the democrats are proposing doesn't have majority support among any group, or any state. Except maybe hardcore leftist socialists such as yourself. Which means nothing.
You want to fix healthcare? Lower costs, allow healthsavings accounts to cut the middleman, and keep the fucking greedy politicians on BOTH sides out of it.
That survey was conducted of doctor around the country by researchers at Mt. Sinai hospital in NY, not Move On. The typical feeble conservative argument is simply to deny the facts. The proof of the public's preference for public insurance is the fact that no country has ever gone back to a private system once they implemented a public system or combination of the two.
There is no proof of a public preference for public insurance though. Not one poll, shows ANY state with a majority favoring this plan. If you did, you wouldn't be having soo much trouble getting moderate democrats to sign on for the bill. You don't need a single republican, but the public option is all but dead. You also wouldn't have anti-Obama policy platforms scoring wins for republicans in blue states.
That's true of some polls, but most polls show exactly the opposite when they give people the right information about health care reform. You would know this if you watched anything but conservative media.
In Massachusetts they have a public plan of sorts which Scott Brown voted for & Mitt Romney signed into law. The Mass voters have not punished the members of the state legislature for creating it. We will see if the Mass voters re-elect Scott Brown in 34 months when his seat expires.
Actually, it's the leftist polls that are disingenuous. everytime a poll asks "do you support healthcare reform" they present it as if that means they support the democrat proposal. When the specifics of that bill are mentioned, support in polls drops like a rock. People do want our system to improve, but not the way your liberals are trying to gain power through it.
That "Power", as you call it, could be in the form of political support for bringing back responsible effective government after the 8 years of corruption and disastrous economic results of the Bush administration. Just like when FDR got elected 4 times after the horror that supply side policies of the 1920's brought.
The economy is not more stable when the "rich" pay higher taxes. Government revenues go DOWN, that's a historical fact, and unemployment goes up. How are the middle class going to spur grwoth with spending if they're out of work, dipshit? Somebody has to pay them, before they can pay anybody else. Wealth is generated in one place and one place only, the corporate ownership. The governemtn can't create wealth, only spread it around which does nothing for the good of the collective.
In polls where people are asked "Do you think Obama is doing a good job on healthcare reform?" Many liberals are now answering "no" because Obama has not fought very hard for the public option (my position). So the liberals are often being lumped in with in the right wingers as being anti-health reform which is totally inaccurate and skews some opinion polls against health reform.
Boffo, I know that far left extremist liberals are a small part of Obama's approval rating, but his big problem is the independents, and the 40% of Americans who call themselves Conservative. Obama owed his win to running as a moderate, tax cutting bipartisan. His first year has awakened alot of his voters to the fact that his campaign was utter bull. He's just another Carter style leftist, sending us further down the wrong path. Appeasing the liberals is not going to help him.
Of course Kennedy was right and it's one of the reasons that he was a great president.
JFK's proposal did cut taxes & it did lead to the largest % increase in growth of GDP in history (Bureau of Economic Analysis). But it gave the biggest cuts to the middle class: the people whose spending drives the economy, unlike the Reagan, Bush41 & Bush43 tax cuts which gave the lions share to the cuts to the super wealthy.
67% of the economy is driven by consumer spending. That's regular people spending their money on everyday things as well as big ticket items, i.e. the rich don't drive the economy & the economy is more stable when the rich pay higher taxes. In recessions rich people don't really alter their spending habits because they're rich. After JFK's tax cut the richest American's still paid a 70% tax rate which is twice as high as the current rate & resulted in the largest % increase in GDP in history.
Once again, you have swallowed the bilge on this. Kennedy cut taxes ACROSS the board, with the biggest cut being 20% from the TOP marginal rate.
Adjusting for inflation and national income in the 60's, the Kennedy tax cut was the biggest in history 1.90% of national income. Thanks for admitting the biggest tax cut worked the best.
Now that you realize the middle class move the economy more than the poor, where do the middle class get their income?.........(hint, they're "rich")
Again, JFK's tax cut closed tax loopholes that were available for those in the highest income bracket. That cut resulted in the richest paying more $ in taxes even though the top marginal tax rate was cut. Evidence of this is that government revenues went up after JFK's tax cut & they went down after the Reagan tax cuts.
The economy does better when the rich pay more in taxes. How else do you explain Clinton's raising taxes 8.6% & having the longest period of GDP growth in history?
Logic states that if a 20% reduction in the top tax rate worked better than a 10% reduction, you should keep dropping it.
Under who's insistence were the mortgage companies given a quota for minority sub-prime lendings? Liberals under Carter. They cried racism to get minority votes. No bank ever WANTED to loan money to people who couldn't pay it back. None of those other factors would have been necessary without the CRA. Not repealing Glass Steagall, Fannie and Freddie, none of it.
More propaganda from the right wing noise machine.
Ben Bernanke, Charman of the Federal Reserve, appointed by Bush43, who has broad support from Republicans & is opposed by the liberals said on November 25, 2008,
"Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."
So the chairman of the Fed, under a moderate big spending, big government republican, who failed to see the financial crisis coming even though there were more than enough warnings from politicians, tried to cover his ass! Wow, what a shock.
Could it be that by novemeber 25 2008 his job security was dependent on the approval of a new president, who intended to blame the lenders for what the government mandated they do? Hmmmm..
Seriously, use your brain. You sound smarter than this, Boffo.
Aren't all of the recent Repub presidents big spenders?
Bush43 is the president Reagan would have been if Reagan had a Republican Congress the first six years of his presidency. I constantly hear cons complain about deficit spending, yet there is no mention of the spectacular deficits that were accumulated under Repub presidents.
Reagan tripled the the debt to $3 trillion with his cut & spend policies, Bush41 added 1.5 trillion, Bush43 added 5.5 trillion +the first bailout of 770 billion.
Clinton left Bush43 with a $2.5 trillion surplus, but did he use that money to pay down the dreaded national debt? No he blew it on tax cuts for the rich & then proceeded to dwarf Reagan's Ruthian numbers for debt accumulation. As long as the cons hold Reagan up as the model president on fiscal policy, they will have no credibility.
By your own standards all recent Republican presidents have been abject failures.
Of course recent republicans have been big spenders. Why do you think conservatives want to throw out almost every member of BOTH parties and institute term limits? Tea parties are not actually the republican astroturf your news sources want you to think they are.
Clinton never claimed a 2.5 trillion surplus. Nor did he have one at all unless you account like Demo and disregard debts he wouldn't have to pay in his term. Clinton NEVER had more money than he was spending according to treasury.
Remember the $300 tax rebate checks that Bush sent out in 2001? That was the Clinton surplus. Bush said, "It's your money. I think that you will spend it better than the government will." So he sent it back to us.
Alot fo republicans support Bernanke, because in reality, they're not much better than the liberal dems.
As for Bush paying out the "trillions," isn't that where it should go? Back to the people, if the government didn't need it? Trouble was, they did need it after all. Turns out that money was already spoken for by Clinton's two wars, entitlement budget deficits, and foreign aid.
And this is why the Republicans will never get rid of the national debt.
They only use the tax argument to get votes from the people who will never benefit from their tax policy. They talk about the debt that's being run up for future generations, then the ONE CHANCE they had, since forever, to pay down the down the debt, they gave it away instead.
What are you talking about? It was that neocon Bush who blew it. The Democratic Congress ruined Reagan's chance to decrease the debt, and the Republican Congress in the 90's helped balance the budget with Clinton
Federal budgets begin at the White House. So presidents are directly responsible for the size of the budget. The era of big government spending began with Reagan. He increased the debt by a bigger percentage than any administration in history.
His tax & economic policies are the reason why we are where we are today. Before Reagan the US was the world's largest producer of manufactured goods, world's largest importer of raw materials & worlds biggest $ lender.
Reagan slashed tariffs on imported goods which allowed US manufacturers to send their factories overseas. His tax policies are the reason why we are where we are today. Before Reagan the US was the world's largest producer of manufactured goods & worlds biggest $ lender. Reagan slashed tariffs on imported goods. Which allowed US manufacturers to send their factories overseas.
We are the world biggest importer of foreign goods & world's largest exporter of raw materials. But it made big US corporations, & rich people a lot richer.
Clinton is the only president in the last 40 years to submit a balanced budget & he did it 3 times. And the only reason that he was able to do it was because of the increased revenues from increasing taxes in 1993 which not one Republican voted for.
Bush did nothing that wasn't completely consistent with Reagan's economic policies.
But they work in conjunction with the Congress, which votes it in. Do you think Reagan had any chance of cutting government with Congress full of Democrats? No, but his priority was still to escalate the Cold War, so he continued to spend on the military and cut whatever government he could.
But his tax policies also created the biggest economic boom in American history in the 80's and led to the same innovation in the 90's, and the growth began to outstrip his own deficits.
Again don't believe what you hear from Faux News & Limbaugh.
According to the U.S. government statistics (BEA), the best economy in U.S. history was during the Kennedy-Johnson years (largest increase % in GDP growth), second was during the Clinton years (best overall numbers) and third was during the Reagan years.
Check out Dan Ackman's article "Presidents and Prosperity" in the conservative Forbes Magazine from July of 2004. It's on available on their website.
After 10 years of Reaganomics we were in what was (until Bush43) the worst economy since the Great Depression. In 1987 we had the first stock market crash since 1929. That was accompanied by the S&L scandal bailout, by 1991 the real estate market was tanking...none of these things had been seen since the last time taxes on the rich were dropped to 28%. Now they are a regular occurrence.
Continued ... Now we have Limbaugh & Faux News et al, to misinform the public & blame the Dems so that rich guys like Rupert Murdoch, Steve Forbes & Rush can still get their tax cuts.
Are we getting back into the same arguments? Are you forgetting the post-Vietnam recession? The hyperinflation of the 70s? The recession of 2000, before Bush was even President? Looking back even further we can argue that FDR's New Deal brought us into a double-dip depression.
(cont.) If you believe at all that policies of the past have an impact on the economic future, why shouldn't Reagan bear some credit for the boom of the 1990s? (You blame him for the bust in the 2000's after all).
You lamented before the Reagan ended US dominance in manufacturing. That is because his boom allowed people to trade up. 82 percent of new jobs were in higher-paying, higher-skilled occupations
The Forbes article is flawed because it does not take into account Congressional efforts
From 1961-1969 was the longest period of uninterrupted GDP growth since the government started measuring quarterly GDP stats in 1947. In the 60's, we also had the lowest unemployment rates ever (3.5% in 1969). But the most important of result the liberal economic policies of every president from FDR to LBJ is real disposable income. Real disposable income during the 1960's was the highest ever. This is why the standard of living during the 1960's was the highest ever for middle income families.
Now that is untrue. Unemployment rates in the 1950's were much lower, getting below 3% throughout much of 1953. Real disposable income has also been constantly increasing with each decade.
Unemployment was not as low in the early 60's, but what do you think spurred job creation in the late 60's and GDP growth? It wasn't liberal policies (hint: look at the video above.)
I should have said that the 1969 rate was lowest unemployment rate in the last 50 years, but let's go with your statistic of 3%.
The top marginal tax rate in 1952 & 1953 was 92%.
I like Ike.
We should return to the tax policy that brought such low unemployment numbers don't you think? I like Ike. Doesn't your own point that the low unemployment rates in '51 & 52 indicate that the Republican meme that high taxes hurt the economy is completely inaccurate?
Now, you bring up low employment rates in '51 and '52...but those were the Truman years. And in the end of the '40's he cut taxes. Mind you that the ridiculously high numbers we are spurting out are jus the federal income tax rate on the highest brackets.
Or as I pointed out why not just return to the more recent rates the were successful under Reagan's 1982 tax cut, which left the top rate at 50%. That produced a dramatic economic recovery in 1984.
The disastrous economies that resulted from lower rates of 28% in 1987, 24% in 1929 & 35% in 2003 suggest that there is a happy median range between the low rates that produce stock market & real estate crashes & the higher rates that were periodically lowered to stimulate growth during recessions.
I am not opposed to a tax rate that is progressive...but to tax anything more than 50 or 60% of anybody's income is criminal. I hope we never return to them, and I think we can thank JFK and certainly Reagan for that.
Under the 70% top rate imposed under Kennedy's tax cut, it doesn't mean that they took 70% of the total amount. A progressive tax is a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases. So under the 1964 tax law, only income earned in excess of $200k was taxed at the 70% rate.
Completely disagree. Kennedy's tax cuts were still very drastic, and made possible the tax cuts that would come in the future. I would even go so far to argue that Kennedy would be considered a moderate conservative today.
Albyiscool, how ironic that you would say that. They tried to brand Kennedy a Communist because of his progressive ideas like building more schools and unemployment compensation. Amazing how half a century can give a whole different perspective. It irks me how so many politicians try to emulate him yet they are doing the same thing to Obama now that they did to Kennedy then. Only difference, JFK had way more guts and took on his enemies head on, Obama just keeps doing the dance of avoidance.
Interesting. I don't think any of those things were new ideas, nor were they exclusively "progressive". Eisenhower had those same ideas.
What many people ignore is that Kennedy was much more right wing than he is made out to be. He was a warmonger by anybody's standards, and lowered taxes.
Can't agree with the warmonger monikor. Just listen to his speeches, he speaks of peace all the time and an end to war. After being nearly killed in WWII and seeing how many private corporations profited off of other's suffering, he was turned off of war. Listen to his speeches at JFK: My Business Was Mankind on youtube. He speaks of US Steel raising their price by $6 a ton while everyone else is told to tighten their belt and soldiers are dying in Vietnam. He was furious over their action.
YOU do not understand what drives the economy, getting money into the government pockets isnt from TAXING so high there cant be growth. The tax rates have to reflect economic growth. Taxing UNearned income at 70% might be ok, but you cant do it when our only growth is short selling dollars overseas. The republicans didnt vote for the privatization of SS ( and it was a small amount, not all) because of the LIBERAL press scaring people about RISK, wich was NON existant in BOND FUNDS
In the entire time from the end of the Great Depression until the oil crisis of the 1970's there were no severe recessions, no bank crises, no housing market collapses & stock market crashes. At no point during that time was the top marginal tax rate less than 70%.
My whole point to this entire thread is that conservatives would scream bloody murder if Scott Brown or anyone else talked about returning to the tax rates that resulted from the proposal that JFK is introducing in this ad.
I have been repeating this all over this thread, but it needs repeating.
JFK's tax cut closed tax loopholes that were available for those in the highest income bracket. That cut resulted in the richest paying more $ in taxes even though the top marginal tax rate was cut. Evidence of this is that government revenues went up after JFK's tax cut & they went down after the Reagan tax cuts. JFK stated his intention to close these loopholes during the TV debates with Nixon in the 1960 campaign.
Overall though you mistakenly attribute Democratic presidents with liberal economic policies. Bill Clinton reigned in spending and JFK lowered taxes. Reagan also lowered taxes and spending, but made it his priority to switch spending to the military for his foreign agenda.
I will conclude (finally) by saying that the Forbes article also equates government spending with economic stability...and that is very frightening indeed.
Nice try. The top tax rate after JFK's tax cut became law was still 70%, twice as high as it is now.
Clinton raised taxes 8.6% in 1993 to a top rate of 39.6% & not one Republican voted for it. Without those tax increases Clinton's deficit reductions would not have been feasible.
A 20% drop from 90%...and Clinton's tax rate was still half of that and according to you, that era of prosperity was even greater. So even if Clinton did raise taxes (don't forget that George Bush Sr. also raised taxes) it was still a relatively low tax rate.
All that aside, can you imagine the sheer robbery of a 90% tax rate? Thank God we are no longer there. Liberals cannot fathom the idea that maybe we should cut spending AND cut taxes to prevent a deficit.
The high tax rates that preceded the JFK's administration were in place since the end of WWII. Ike fully supported these 91% top tax rates through the 1950's for the reason that it took that long to pay for the cost of WWII, kind of the opposite of the modern day Republican.
The tax rates Reagan railed about when he ran for president were the same rates that JFK is proposing here. So if you support Reagan, it makes no sense to celebrate the guy who proposed those rates in the first place.
Ike supported them because he was also a supporter of the New Deal. I don't claim that he is a conservative, since he was considered a moderate, maybe even liberal Republican.
So you are arguing that I should not support JFK because he only cut it by 20% instead of say 50% or more? I support the spirit of the tax cuts, I realize such drastic change cannot be done all at once. 20% is still significant and allowed futured presidents to lower the rates even more.
If you support the New Deal, then you are necessarily a liberal.
JFK's tax cut is completely consistent with the liberal economic principles of the time or Keynesianism. Cutting taxes during a recession is a liberal idea, assuming that you have a responsible tax policy to begin with. For the last 8 years we haven't had responsible tax policy, so now we have to make chicken salad out of chicken shit.
There you have it then, Eisenhower was a moderate or liberal Republican (I say moderate because there are many more social issues that politicians face)
"Cutting taxes during a recession is a liberal idea"
False. Spending like a drunken sailor during a recession is a liberal idea, that is the whole theory behind Keynesian economics, no?
It was not the tax policy of the last 8 years that was irresponsible, but the spending. Hell even if he kept the taxes it wouldnt have helped.
mrboffo1>>REAGAN also forced saving money for each dollar spent. The REAL problems being bantered around here revolve around lobbyists, and the SEC and housing trying to "powerpush" the economy too fast. These are facts, loopholes were created, and BUBBLES. CONSERVATIVE economic policy makes common sense, but the SEC rules are so corrupt, and COVERED up, its really impossible to get a fiscal policy to fly. Corp tax deduductions in the US seem to only benefit big corps, leaving small ones hurtn
I've never smoked crack, but I hear that the high is AWESOME. It's the crash afterword that's a real drag. Reaganomics is the same way. The stock market highs from the big tax cut is initially great. It's the aftermath of those cuts that is a real bitch, like it was in the 1930's, 1987, 2007-08 & nobody wants a burned out crackhead on their hands. So let's put down the crack pipe & get back to the sensible polices of regulated capitalism.
Let's get off of oil too while we're at it, bad habit.
Let's not forget the tech bubble burst of 2000 which followed Clinton's signing in 1997 of the capital gains tax cut. This was almost specifically targeted toward people who make their money from the sale of stock and stock dividends. Another failure for supply side theory, this time brought to us with 100% support of Republicans in Congress, a lot of Dems and signed into law by a Democrat.
TECH bubble ostly caused by M to M accounting, AND the RULES on the SEC, NOBODY talks about the HUGE corurpution in the SEC. The SEC is responsible for most of the bubbles and the wealth transfer problems.Congress cant control the SEC. What say you mrboffo?
we have our own oil, to regulate capitalism, for a small but steady growth, the SEC needs to be CLEANED OUT. In 2007 TWICE as many "dry" barrels of oil were sold on the NYMEX, vs actual "WET" barrels pumped.
The CRA was created in 1977 under Jimmy Carter to provide loans to lower income earners who met the financial standard home a loan, but were denied loans on the basis of red lining practices by the private lenders. So it wasn't that the loan applicants weren't qualified to receive a standard home loan, but that their loans were deemed less profitable than lending to more affluent customers by the mortgage lenders.
Damn that Jimmy Carter for giving poor people a chance at the American dream!
You might want to check with the tax foundation in washington on your beliefs too, instead of the talking heads on your television. THe top 1% of earners only saw about 20% of the tax cuts from Bush. given that they bare almost 50% of the burden, and the bottom 40% don't end up paying tax at all, that seems fair to me. Plus, they worked. 9/11 should have crippled us, instead we got 6 years of sustained growth.
sales, excise and most of all, payroll taxes. Starting with the first dollar they earn, virtually all American workers pay the 6.2% Social Security tax (on income up to $97,000) and another 1.45% for Medicare. An analysis by the Tax Policy Center concluded, "three quarters of filers pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes."
Ah, You have never been poor either. You do know what a TX return is right? The earned income tax credit? Have you never earned soo little that the government owes YOU money according to tax law? (Which of course is absurd, the government doesn't have money, Middle class paychecks are where that comes from.)
And wow, the bottom 50% pay 3.9% of taxes thanks to the regressive payroll tax. Excuse me If I don't think we should name bridges after trailer park residents.
What does its say about our country that so many don't make enough to pay income tax?
The top 1% control 42% percent of the wealth in the US. Thanks to the regressive tax & trade policies since Reagan, our manufacturing jobs are now sent overseas, undercutting American wages and thanks to the Repubs, our tax system gives American manufacturers incentive them to do it.
The average CEO makes 300 times what the average worker makes.
Who do you think should be paying most of the taxes?
The increase in GDP has NOTHING to do with TAXING the rich more. GDP, is NOT tax revenue to the GOVERNMENT. Mrboffo, if you want to FIX stuff how about changing the RULES in the SEC that allows people to buy oil futures on CREDIT, then default if price goes low and swap GM stcok for it, destroying the industry?? UNEARNED Dividends taz is where ya waana be, NOT the Rich who EARNED IT! ps, im poor and unemployed, and no health insurance
HIgher taxes on business gives larger business owners greater incentive to reinvest more of their profits back into the company rather than take it all out in personal salary. (Employee pay is pre-tax.) That results in things like raises for their employees, buying more equipment etc. That is what results in greater economic activity or GDP.
When workers get paid more, they spend more. When rich people get paid more they put it into the stock & real estate markets and create economic bubbles.
CORP tax cuts leads to expansion and more jobs... and WHY give more tax dollars to a government that cant run ANYTHING better than 50% efficiency?? example, US post office, and theres many more
The right wing media has constantly trumpeted the false meme that the govt can't do anything. Why then didn't Republicans support Bush43's initiative to privatize Social Security in 2005? They had both houses & the White House, but Republicans in Congress pleaded with Bush not to come to their districts & talk about privatizing Social Security. Aren't you glad your Social Security wasn't in the stock market in 2007 & 2008?
Try to get Fedex or UPS to deliver a letter for 44¢.
SS in the stock market in safe BOND funds( for the small amount that was suggested to be invested) would have yielded MORE money than the government has to show in SS now, which is NEGATIVE
While it's true that the US has the 4th highest corporate tax rate, what Limbaugh doesn't tell you is that after deductions that are allowed under U.S. tax laws, U.S. corporate taxes are the lowest taxes of any country in the industrialized world, & corporate taxes account for about 10% of federal revenue. In the 1950's when life was good in America, corporate taxes accounted for 25 to 30% of federal revenue (i.e. they paid more taxes).
Think of that the next time the Pigman bitches about it.
@ boffo. It's not that soo many don't make enough to pay taxes. Our poor live better and get compensated more than most people on the planet, even in the industrialized world. That foreign opinion you libs thrive on is that even our poor are gluttons!! No, the reason they don't get taxed is the liberal movement's tactic of using envy to turn the poor into a permanent voting block. If the poor would stop worrying about what everybody else has, they would realize how good they have it.
It was the tax cuts under Reagan & Bush41 which created the incentive to flood the stock and real estate markets with extra $ that created the stock market bubble / crash of 1987 & real estate bubble which crashed in the early 1990's.
True, but it's hard to sell the idea that a policy worked too well, thus do the opposite, which has never worked at all. Were those "crashes" anything like what we got thanks to liberal subprime mortgage mandates? Not even close.
If letting employers keep more of the money they use to pay employees with is what's causing our current economic problems, why doesn't Obama undo the Bush tax cuts? Healthcare costs didn't cause this, jsut fix the problem. He knows he can't that's why.
The subprime mess would not have happened without the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, that happened with the passage of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 signed by Bill Clinton. The bill passed almost exclusively with Republican votes. The right wing noise machine have lamely tried to blame this on liberals. The subprime mess was caused by years of effort by the right to roll back regulations put in place by liberals like the great Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930's.
The 20's saw a 60% increase in government revenue, it was Hoover's tax hikes that caused the decline.. Christ. Here, get a clue from your hero:
"It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits" -JFK.
No, we were 2 years into a cyclical recession, Hoover's tax increases turned into a depression. Why do you think things kept getting worse throughout his presidency? The tax hikes obviously didn't help, to say the least.
Kinda sounds familiar, almost like something going on right now. As if another president was forgoign sound fiscal corrective policy to fulfill a tax and spend agenda, making a mild recession worse.
So the cons had from 1921 to 1933, twelve years of 100% Republican control of the White House, both houses of Congress, the lowest tax rates of the last 100 years from 1924 to 1931?
They had all that. Everything they could ever want & they couldn't stave off the worst economy ever?
The highest unemployment rate ever?
What more can you ask for?
FAIL!
No such failure ever occurred under a Democratic president
You are ignorant, that is not true and also Jimmy Carter was the president who forced banks to loan to people who did not have the proper credit thus creating the subprime market. Banks who did not lend where penalized. FACT
I should correct your misapprehension that because JFK said that "what we are trying to do is entirely different" somehow implies that he is supporting anything less than a public option. What is being discussed in that speech resulted in Medicare, which is not a public option. It is a govt. mandate paid for by your & my taxes & our participation is not an option, we don't have to participate in the Medicare system if we live that long, but neither do we have the option of not paying for it.
Boffo, not only is Medicare the best example of how government is not the answer, running almost as bankrupt and corrupt as social security, but you contradicted yourself. The "public option" isn't really optional. Medicare is a taxpayer funded helping hand you can choose. The dem plan is a mandate that you not only have to pay for, but is designed so that everyone will eventually have to participate in. It's a system that has been a proven failure all over the world.
The public option would be optional under the proposal to create a govt run exchange which consumers could elect to buy into the system. Even better is the proposal to give people the choice to buy into Medicare rather than be stuck with private insurance that will only rip them off & cancel their policy when they get sick & need the coverage; coverage that have already paid for through their premiums. The current system offers limited choice to consumers; less choice for those with less money.
If only the public option was as purely motivated as the liberals would have us believe. Did you miss the part of the bill that doesn't allow you off of the Public Option once you're on it? Or how the government can fund it at financial loss, driving the competition out of business through a price war? Or did you even realize that the only reason it seems affordable is that it won't start til ten years after we get taxed for it? (long after the CBO's rules allow it to project, sneaky bastards.)
So make the private insurers compete with the public system. That's what France does and they have the best healthcare system in the world according to the World Health organization.
That would keep the private insurance cartel honest. They don't want to be honest.
The private insurers love Medicare. It takes the most expensive people out of the private sector when they are most likely to have an expensive health issue shoves them over to Medicare.
Do you just swallow everything the media spins your way? The WHO doesn't say France has the best healthcare system in the world, or that we have one of the worst. They say that Europeans are healthier people. I would probably eat better and bike to work more often too if I had to go through what the french do to get treated. Nobody has disease survival rates, and rising life expectancy like the US. Socialized systems around the world are failing, and you want to try one out. Unbelievable.
You can find many polls in the mainstream media showing widespread support for the public option if you google "public option support", even Fox has reported this; then again you can believe what you choose. The greatest proof of overwhelming public support of govt. run health insurance is the fact no Repub would even think of voting to kill Medicare. During the recent debate in the House, Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner offered a proposal to repeal Medicare & not one Repub would support it.
Again, you're confusing medicare and this democrat healthreform power grab. the only reason we can't get rid of Medicare is because too many now depend on it. We don't have a choice. What we have right now is the opportunity not to make the same mistake twice. We should know enough now not to trust government with our lives like that. I think the best proof that the Public Option is a failed concept, is that you can't get all the DEMOCRATS to support it. Repubs aren't your problem!!
You know, for some reason you want to trust Obama that much, fine. Go ahead, put that much power in the hands of a Governemtn that was never intended for it. Don't come crying to me when in 2012 Sarah Palin has the authority to restrict reproductive rights as a budget line item. That's EXACTLY the kind of thing you are voting to make a possibility.
As for your healthcare farse, your side is spinning like a top trying to answer for the huge loss in MA. They say the Washington times poll shows 68% of Brown voters approve of Obamacare. In reality, that question asks if it was a factor. When the poll asked about approval, 80% of Brown voters, and 44% overall OPPOSE both the MA and Obamacare reform bills. This is from one of the bluest states in the union! the fundamental flaws of government healthcare gave Brown the election.
The top tax rate when JFK ran for president was 90%.
The current top tax rate is 35% regardless if you are making $100,000 or $100,000,000. The person making $100 million and takes home $65 million can afford to kick in some more taxes compared to the person taking home $65,000.
And if that person taking home $65 million is going to quit working because he had to pay some extra taxes, then I am sure there are a million people who would love to make 1/100 of that and pay the extra taxes.
The United States built the greatest economy in the history of the world in the decades following WWII under those high tax rates which you cite. That is the ultimate proof of the fallacy of Reaganomics that I can think of. Since Reagan's 1987 tax cuts taxes have been too low and our bubble-crash-bailout cycle has been the result.
The way conservatives scream about deficit spending you would think that Ronald Reagan had submitted a balanced budget at least once.
No, the United States became the greatest economy because of all the private industry factories that swtiched to manufacturing weapons for the war. Government in WWII acted like a customer instead of the boss, which is why it worked. That's how they got out of the Depression, which was a part of the Bubble-burst cycle that already existed.
I'm sorry, but if you never figured out that your college professors were not the smartest people in the world, there's no hope for you.
The top marginal tax rate during WWII started at 88% in 1942 & by 1945 the top tax rate was 94%. That rate continued to stay at 91% until, JFK's cut lowered it to 71%. From WWII until the oil crises of the 1970's there was not one severe recession, not one banking crisis, no stock market or real estate crashes. But it wasn't until Reagan's '87 tax cut that the bubble cycle begin again.
I thought that high taxes on the rich & regulations killed economic growth? Looks like you're wrong again.
The during the war the government was the boss. FDR told the auto makers & other big manufacturers that they were now going to be making armaments & dramatically limited their share of the profits through heavy taxation. This has been described as a command economy which is synonymous with socialism. So if you're citing the WWII economy as an example for a good formula for success then are making an argument for socialism.
The war effort providing a market for starving manufacturers, and the socialist government ownership of an entire industry are not essenitally the same. Just come out and claim socialism works, so we can all laugh at you and get on with our day.
You also ignore that war funds went straight back into the corporate manufacturers, creating a sustainable system. Milking employers doesn't work. Low taxes increase government revenue.
If low taxes increase government revenue, then why did the national debt triple under Reagan & then Bush41 added another 1.5 trillion to the debt in 4 years?
Was it just that Reagan was an incompetent manager of the the government?
You ignore the fact that this was the greatest govt. jobs program in history, a stimulus plan that worked by the fact that the Republicans didn't have the political footing to water it down with tax cuts for the rich. Since Reagan, our tax & trade policies have given every incentive for corporations to lay off workers & ship jobs overseas rather than keep them here & give raises to keep up with the cost of living as our policies did before corporate fascists took control of the US govt in 1981.
Medicare was a jobs program? You must be kidding. If anyone had listened to those that opposed this measure, we wouldn't have to throw money down medicare in what Obama called "waste and fraud." the reagan era was one of the most prosperous times for everyone in this country, poor and rich alike. Why, because he didn't falsely pit one against the other. He used the system in the way that benefits everyone. You had Clinton for 8 years. Why didn't his anit corporate tax hike bring jobs back?
WWII was the greatest jobs program in history, not Medicare.
Clinton did raise corporate taxes added 23 million jobs to the economy in 8 years. I think we can call that a success.
The "waste and fraud" Obama was referring is the Republican tax payer rip-off known as Medicare Prescription D. Written by health insurance & pharma lawyers, passed under a Republican Congress & signed by Bush43. It is wasteful, expensive & unnecessary.
How would you call Clinton's economic policy a "success?" He took a thriving economy based on low tax policy, took credit for it, then did a 180 and left us in a recession, killed the tech boom, and sucked a trillion dollars out of the free market to accomplish......nothing. (He started two wars too, you know) Don't tell me you're one of these numbskulls that believe that "Surplus" garbage are you? I got a bridge in Alaska to sell you if that's the case.
Listen to this, people! Bill Clinton was personally responsible for creating all those jobs. He went into towns and cities, opened up businesses, managed budgets, and hired people. That motherfucker did everything!
Kennedy went too far and upset the owners of this country with giving back too much power to the American people. They assassinated him when he finally went too far by phasing out the federal reserve. This took the power of issuing money from a private entity (all the major banks of the world) and back to the responsibility of congress.
googlesbitch 11 months ago
Great ad!!
peterhansenism 1 year ago
Tax cuts work, over spending doesn't, any fool can figure that out!
Even me!
roger6060 1 year ago
Kennedy is the greatest U.S. president of all time
delorme9 1 year ago
@delorme9 Maybe he's up there, but he is NOT better than Washington and Lincoln.
logalogalog 1 year ago
I knew Kennedy, and he's NO Kennedy.
Empoli5 1 year ago
@Empoli5 "I knew Kennedy, and he's NO Kennedy." Yes he is NO... Teddy Kennedy!
ja01975 1 year ago
Um Bush gave two sets of tax cuts and our economy almost collapsed,duh.
MrTabby5000 1 year ago
@MrTabby5000 The tax cuts did NOT cause the real estate bubble. The tax cuts did NOT cause energy prices to skyrocket. The tax cuts did NOT lead people to be wiser with their extra money - they simply spent it (and more - just look at personal consumer debt).
Your statement is a non-sequitur.
RackedRabbi 1 year ago
@RackedRabbi
It still collapsed,duh.
MrTabby5000 1 year ago
@MrTabby5000
The economy collapsed do to the fact that to much money was spent on things that could have waited. If we had worked to pay off the national debt instead of buying stuff, we would be just fine. The tax cuts were working.
ACoolDudeProduction 1 year ago
@ACoolDudeProduction
You agree its still collapsed,right?
MrTabby5000 1 year ago
@MrTabby5000
Yes, we collapsed because we spent money on programs that did not matter. That caused the debt to skyrocket and the recession to begin. The tax cuts were working.
ACoolDudeProduction 1 year ago
@ACoolDudeProduction
We still collapsed,therefore tax cuts didnt matter right?They only benefited paris hilton who I hate.
MrTabby5000 1 year ago
@MrTabby5000
You are not listening. The tax cuts gave more money to the people and less to the government. The government spent that money unwisely. that is what caused us to collapse.
ACoolDudeProduction 1 year ago
@ACoolDudeProduction
Our country still collapsed though.
MrTabby5000 1 year ago
ah hell no
Lakaior 1 year ago
How DARE the Republicans take JFK and use him for their own political gain?
This is sickening.
jfkpublicservant 1 year ago
@jfkpublicservant - How DARE the Democrats pretend they are still the party of JFK for their own political gain?
This is predictable!
kc5qhh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JFK was a true bluedog dem! If he were alive today, no doubt he'd give Patrick a good smack across his socialist chops. Go Scott! Keep economic sanity in govt.
guatay 1 year ago
The top Personal and Corporate tax rates were VASTLY higher back in 1960! To simply say they should be cut under any circumstances ingores the unique state of the economy and the nation at any given time. We had a huge debt, two wars -largley unfunded and a expensive perscription drug plan and already had an upper class tax cut in the last 8 years, we need to shrink W's deficit and that requires tax revenue.
bigfilmhat 1 year ago
Yeah, 90% is a hell of a lot higher than the 35% (?) tax rate upper income earners face.
manbearpig8402 1 year ago
too BAD OBAMA DIDN'T REALIZE THE SAME THING.!
3dartistguy 2 years ago
lower taxes = ? = more jobs....
...
Would somebody mind telling me the rest of the equation?
MidgarZolom 2 years ago
less taxes creates jobs dude...when people have the money, they spend it on goods and services which creates jobs, which is why when Bush, senior went back on his famous no new taxes pledge years ago and raised taxes, the economy slumped because no one had any money to spend on goods and services...
3dartistguy 1 year ago
@MidgarZolom
Yes,where are the jobs?
MrTabby5000 1 year ago
Funny how Republcans have to identify with Democrats to win an election since there are no republicans that have ever done anything for the middle class. Then they add phony patriotism even when they have been draft-dodgers and the rednecks lap it up. Because there is a hidden message...NO BLACKS ALLOWED.
glennis3 2 years ago
Scott Brown is a Lt Col. I do not think that is phony patriotism.
jumbomango75 2 years ago
Yeah, just look at Benedict Arnold.
pihingler 1 year ago
DUDE, you are an idiot and a racist yourself. Modern Democrats support Affiramtive Action policies which institutes Reverse Discrimintion against the white majority, keeping folks like me unemployed and unhappy....Obama is the most vicious racist going and not many people realize it. JFK's tax cuts were in keeping with Ronald Reagan's tax cuts and George W. Bush's tax cuts...you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to realize that.
3dartistguy 1 year ago
I can't decide whether he's as handsome as JFK. I wonder what the poll numbers say. If 51% say he's more handsome, I think we should replace Obama with him. WAIT, we haven't seen him with his shirt off. Why isn't People Magazine on top of this?
farmboycarl 2 years ago
Democrats and Republicans are just differnet sides of the same coin. If you want "Change", try doing the opposite of what the Wall Street owned media tells you to do. -By the way, does anyone know if Britney Spears had her breasts lifted?
farmboycarl 2 years ago
Can anybody find a link to the song "Bad, Bad Scotty Brown?"
ronpaulvoter 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
speaking of campaign financing, I"m running for congress and accepting NO DONATIONS from anywhere. My videos are low budget (no budget) and explain how this should be done. I'd be much obliged if you would critique them.
Thanks
Patrick Thompson
pthompson2010 2 years ago
What happend is all the liberals entitlement programs zapped all the money out of the standard of living for the Middle class. the Liberals Taxed and Spent our nation into poverty
wiseoneetest 2 years ago
Reaganomics bankrupted America. Since Reagan,the federal govt. has raided Social Security to pay for the Republicans profligate spending. It used pay for itself, but now it is being pillaged to pay for tax cuts for the super wealthy & the cons attack SS for not being solvent.
Bush43's unpaid mandate to ruin Medicare in 2003 with part D forces seniors to pay for coverage that they already paid for before they retired. It's nothing but a ripoff: big money for insurance companies & Big pharma.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Nation has 15.6 million unemployed let's f*%K around and spend a year debating healthcare when we could be addressing the economy and putting people back to work. Oh yea and let's FORCE uneployed people to pay for health insurance even though they are in foreclosure and can't find work DUHHHHHHH! What a bunch of "stupid" reprensentatives we have in DC. I say vote out anyone who has a link to special interests and over 2 terms-CLEAN HOUSE>>>UMMM I MEAN HOUSES! lol
Imaketv20years 2 years ago
Obama,Obama-Care...TEA-BAGGED
Publik Option.....TEA-BAGGED
Nanny Pelosi...TEA-BAGGED
Scarey Ried..TEA-BAGGED
Liberal/Democrat/Marxist/Progessive agenda....TEA-BAGGED
Democrat Congress TEA-BAGGED
Ted Kennedy Seat...TEA-BAGGED
Martha Coakely..TEA-BAGGED
Boffo....TEA-BAGGED
Congratulations SENATOR ELECT BROWN !!! Good for Massachusetts,Good for America,Good For TEA-BAGGERS !!!! God Bless
wiseoneetest 2 years ago
Obama,Obama-Care ..TEA-BAGGED
The "Kennedy Seat".. TEA-BAGGED
The Democrat Congress ..TEA-BAGGED
Marth Coakley.. TEA-BAGGED
Liberal Main Stream Media..TEA-BAGGED
Boffo..TEA-BAGGED
Liberal Establishment..TEA-BAGGED
Congratulations SENATOR ELECT BROWN ! Good for Massachusetts,Good for America,Good for Liberty, Good for TEA-BAGGERS...God Bless
Air America...TEA-BAGGED
Supreme Court To Leftists..TEA-BAGGED
wiseoneetest 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THIS is what the SCOTUS decision means in the REAL WORLD. Leftist politicians who have demonized Corporations no longer have a MONOPOLY on political speech,Leftist Politicians who have made Energy Corporations their whipping boy NO LONGER have a free pass. Leftist Politicians NOW will reap VERY REAL CONSEQUENCES for their Poltical Speech Against Corporations. CAPITALAISM is alive and well in the USA. Because they now have Free and Unfettered POLITICAL SPEECH to adress those who attack them.
wiseoneetest 2 years ago
Tea Bag Obama!!!!!!!!
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
Obama,Obama-Care,Nanny Pelosi,Scarey Ried, all the leftist stooges and Usefull idiots wich comprise the leftist Liberal/Democrat/Marxist/Progressive Establsihment and machine have been Thuroughly and Gloriously
TEA-BAGGED....HARD
Congratulations SENATOR ELECT BROWN,Good for Massachusetts,Good For America,Good for Liberty,Good for TEA-BAGGERS...Sweeeeet. God Bless.
wiseoneetest 2 years ago
This guy is a prick ... He potrays himself as a new JFK ,but in reality he is planning to KILL something that Ted Kennedy JFK's dedicated his life to fighting for. Also everyone knows if JFK & RFK were alive they wouild NOT be supporting this guy ,but would be as dedicated to fighting for healthcare as much as Ted was. This AD is a sign of direct disrespect to the entire Kennedy family. Also let's be really we are facing totally different problems today then we did 40 years ago.
SPOT187 2 years ago 3
JFK would never have supported the government takeover of healthcare farce that teddy proposed. You would have run JFK out of office as a fanatical right winger if he were around today.
Teddy got a break from being waterboarded in hell, just long enough to see his seat go to a republican. Now, Mary jo Kopechne has him back on the table.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
pimpdalyrical, once again you couldn't be more wrong,
Please watch the You Tube videos "JOHN F. KENNEDY at MADISON SQUARE GARDEN" parts 1&2 if you really want to know what JFK's position on healthcare was. It is an implicit argument for national healthcare insurance and it is one of his greatest speeches.
It is not possible to watch this speech without being convinced that he was a great liberal and it is one of the reasons why he is the hero of liberal Democrats everywhere.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
A tax cutting foreign policy hawk is the hero of liberal democrats huh? I always thought it would be Benedict Arnold. Who knew?
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
Mr. Boffo, did you miss the part in Kennedy's speech where he tells the audience to dismiss the Englishman who will tell them that the English helathcare system doesn't work. Did you not hear Kennedy reassure those people that English healthcare was failing because it was a cradle to grave government program?
Not only do Obama and the libs not other to make that distinction anymore, but the people are smart enough now to know better. We know the socialist agenda behind his facade.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
Wow they found an English doctor who's in it for the $
63% of doctors in this country support the public option because they experience first hand the corruption of our health system.
The best way for a PM to get removed from office in England is to cut funding to the NHS. That's why Maggie Thatcher was removed from office by her own party in 1990, the Conservative Party. After all the disingenuous rhetoric from the right, even conservatives support health care reform when they get the facts.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
No, 63% of doctors do not support a Public Option. Your sources are biased. What they support is an extension of medicare for unemployment. This sham the democrats are proposing doesn't have majority support among any group, or any state. Except maybe hardcore leftist socialists such as yourself. Which means nothing.
You want to fix healthcare? Lower costs, allow healthsavings accounts to cut the middleman, and keep the fucking greedy politicians on BOTH sides out of it.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
That survey was conducted of doctor around the country by researchers at Mt. Sinai hospital in NY, not Move On. The typical feeble conservative argument is simply to deny the facts. The proof of the public's preference for public insurance is the fact that no country has ever gone back to a private system once they implemented a public system or combination of the two.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
There is no proof of a public preference for public insurance though. Not one poll, shows ANY state with a majority favoring this plan. If you did, you wouldn't be having soo much trouble getting moderate democrats to sign on for the bill. You don't need a single republican, but the public option is all but dead. You also wouldn't have anti-Obama policy platforms scoring wins for republicans in blue states.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
That's true of some polls, but most polls show exactly the opposite when they give people the right information about health care reform. You would know this if you watched anything but conservative media.
In Massachusetts they have a public plan of sorts which Scott Brown voted for & Mitt Romney signed into law. The Mass voters have not punished the members of the state legislature for creating it. We will see if the Mass voters re-elect Scott Brown in 34 months when his seat expires.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Actually, it's the leftist polls that are disingenuous. everytime a poll asks "do you support healthcare reform" they present it as if that means they support the democrat proposal. When the specifics of that bill are mentioned, support in polls drops like a rock. People do want our system to improve, but not the way your liberals are trying to gain power through it.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
That "Power", as you call it, could be in the form of political support for bringing back responsible effective government after the 8 years of corruption and disastrous economic results of the Bush administration. Just like when FDR got elected 4 times after the horror that supply side policies of the 1920's brought.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
The economy is not more stable when the "rich" pay higher taxes. Government revenues go DOWN, that's a historical fact, and unemployment goes up. How are the middle class going to spur grwoth with spending if they're out of work, dipshit? Somebody has to pay them, before they can pay anybody else. Wealth is generated in one place and one place only, the corporate ownership. The governemtn can't create wealth, only spread it around which does nothing for the good of the collective.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
In polls where people are asked "Do you think Obama is doing a good job on healthcare reform?" Many liberals are now answering "no" because Obama has not fought very hard for the public option (my position). So the liberals are often being lumped in with in the right wingers as being anti-health reform which is totally inaccurate and skews some opinion polls against health reform.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Boffo, I know that far left extremist liberals are a small part of Obama's approval rating, but his big problem is the independents, and the 40% of Americans who call themselves Conservative. Obama owed his win to running as a moderate, tax cutting bipartisan. His first year has awakened alot of his voters to the fact that his campaign was utter bull. He's just another Carter style leftist, sending us further down the wrong path. Appeasing the liberals is not going to help him.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
I mean, Jesus Christ Boffo, look at the headline of this video in the first few seconds, "Income Tax cut, Kennedy hopes to spur economy!"
Was your hero wrong on that one?
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
Of course Kennedy was right and it's one of the reasons that he was a great president.
JFK's proposal did cut taxes & it did lead to the largest % increase in growth of GDP in history (Bureau of Economic Analysis). But it gave the biggest cuts to the middle class: the people whose spending drives the economy, unlike the Reagan, Bush41 & Bush43 tax cuts which gave the lions share to the cuts to the super wealthy.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
YOU NEED TO LOOK at WHO pays taxes 80% are paid by the TOP 10% of wage earners, thats from the IRS
Formulabruce 2 years ago
67% of the economy is driven by consumer spending. That's regular people spending their money on everyday things as well as big ticket items, i.e. the rich don't drive the economy & the economy is more stable when the rich pay higher taxes. In recessions rich people don't really alter their spending habits because they're rich. After JFK's tax cut the richest American's still paid a 70% tax rate which is twice as high as the current rate & resulted in the largest % increase in GDP in history.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Once again, you have swallowed the bilge on this. Kennedy cut taxes ACROSS the board, with the biggest cut being 20% from the TOP marginal rate.
Adjusting for inflation and national income in the 60's, the Kennedy tax cut was the biggest in history 1.90% of national income. Thanks for admitting the biggest tax cut worked the best.
Now that you realize the middle class move the economy more than the poor, where do the middle class get their income?.........(hint, they're "rich")
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
Again, JFK's tax cut closed tax loopholes that were available for those in the highest income bracket. That cut resulted in the richest paying more $ in taxes even though the top marginal tax rate was cut. Evidence of this is that government revenues went up after JFK's tax cut & they went down after the Reagan tax cuts.
The economy does better when the rich pay more in taxes. How else do you explain Clinton's raising taxes 8.6% & having the longest period of GDP growth in history?
mrboffo1 2 years ago
I'm glad that you support a 70% top tax rate though.
There may be hope for you yet.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Logic states that if a 20% reduction in the top tax rate worked better than a 10% reduction, you should keep dropping it.
Under who's insistence were the mortgage companies given a quota for minority sub-prime lendings? Liberals under Carter. They cried racism to get minority votes. No bank ever WANTED to loan money to people who couldn't pay it back. None of those other factors would have been necessary without the CRA. Not repealing Glass Steagall, Fannie and Freddie, none of it.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
More propaganda from the right wing noise machine.
Ben Bernanke, Charman of the Federal Reserve, appointed by Bush43, who has broad support from Republicans & is opposed by the liberals said on November 25, 2008,
"Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."
mrboffo1 2 years ago
So the chairman of the Fed, under a moderate big spending, big government republican, who failed to see the financial crisis coming even though there were more than enough warnings from politicians, tried to cover his ass! Wow, what a shock.
Could it be that by novemeber 25 2008 his job security was dependent on the approval of a new president, who intended to blame the lenders for what the government mandated they do? Hmmmm..
Seriously, use your brain. You sound smarter than this, Boffo.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
Aren't all of the recent Repub presidents big spenders?
Bush43 is the president Reagan would have been if Reagan had a Republican Congress the first six years of his presidency. I constantly hear cons complain about deficit spending, yet there is no mention of the spectacular deficits that were accumulated under Repub presidents.
Reagan tripled the the debt to $3 trillion with his cut & spend policies, Bush41 added 1.5 trillion, Bush43 added 5.5 trillion +the first bailout of 770 billion.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Clinton left Bush43 with a $2.5 trillion surplus, but did he use that money to pay down the dreaded national debt? No he blew it on tax cuts for the rich & then proceeded to dwarf Reagan's Ruthian numbers for debt accumulation. As long as the cons hold Reagan up as the model president on fiscal policy, they will have no credibility.
By your own standards all recent Republican presidents have been abject failures.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Of course recent republicans have been big spenders. Why do you think conservatives want to throw out almost every member of BOTH parties and institute term limits? Tea parties are not actually the republican astroturf your news sources want you to think they are.
Clinton never claimed a 2.5 trillion surplus. Nor did he have one at all unless you account like Demo and disregard debts he wouldn't have to pay in his term. Clinton NEVER had more money than he was spending according to treasury.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
Remember the $300 tax rebate checks that Bush sent out in 2001? That was the Clinton surplus. Bush said, "It's your money. I think that you will spend it better than the government will." So he sent it back to us.
Or did that not happen either?
mrboffo1 2 years ago
its OUR MONEY, and clinton "surplus":was projected, look at the economy the last 6 months of his term
Formulabruce 2 years ago
WELL SAID!!
Formulabruce 2 years ago
Then why do the Republicans support the renomination of Bernanke?
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Alot fo republicans support Bernanke, because in reality, they're not much better than the liberal dems.
As for Bush paying out the "trillions," isn't that where it should go? Back to the people, if the government didn't need it? Trouble was, they did need it after all. Turns out that money was already spoken for by Clinton's two wars, entitlement budget deficits, and foreign aid.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
And this is why the Republicans will never get rid of the national debt.
They only use the tax argument to get votes from the people who will never benefit from their tax policy. They talk about the debt that's being run up for future generations, then the ONE CHANCE they had, since forever, to pay down the down the debt, they gave it away instead.
We'll just pay interest on it later...to China.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
@mrboffo1
What are you talking about? It was that neocon Bush who blew it. The Democratic Congress ruined Reagan's chance to decrease the debt, and the Republican Congress in the 90's helped balance the budget with Clinton
Albyiscool 2 years ago
Federal budgets begin at the White House. So presidents are directly responsible for the size of the budget. The era of big government spending began with Reagan. He increased the debt by a bigger percentage than any administration in history.
His tax & economic policies are the reason why we are where we are today. Before Reagan the US was the world's largest producer of manufactured goods, world's largest importer of raw materials & worlds biggest $ lender.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Reagan slashed tariffs on imported goods which allowed US manufacturers to send their factories overseas. His tax policies are the reason why we are where we are today. Before Reagan the US was the world's largest producer of manufactured goods & worlds biggest $ lender. Reagan slashed tariffs on imported goods. Which allowed US manufacturers to send their factories overseas.
Now we are the worlds biggest debtor...
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Comment removed
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Comment removed
mrboffo1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We are the world biggest importer of foreign goods & world's largest exporter of raw materials. But it made big US corporations, & rich people a lot richer.
Clinton is the only president in the last 40 years to submit a balanced budget & he did it 3 times. And the only reason that he was able to do it was because of the increased revenues from increasing taxes in 1993 which not one Republican voted for.
Bush did nothing that wasn't completely consistent with Reagan's economic policies.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
@mrboffo1
But they work in conjunction with the Congress, which votes it in. Do you think Reagan had any chance of cutting government with Congress full of Democrats? No, but his priority was still to escalate the Cold War, so he continued to spend on the military and cut whatever government he could.
But his tax policies also created the biggest economic boom in American history in the 80's and led to the same innovation in the 90's, and the growth began to outstrip his own deficits.
Albyiscool 2 years ago
Again don't believe what you hear from Faux News & Limbaugh.
According to the U.S. government statistics (BEA), the best economy in U.S. history was during the Kennedy-Johnson years (largest increase % in GDP growth), second was during the Clinton years (best overall numbers) and third was during the Reagan years.
Check out Dan Ackman's article "Presidents and Prosperity" in the conservative Forbes Magazine from July of 2004. It's on available on their website.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
@mrboffo1
Well don't worry, I don't listen to Limbaugh and I was Fox News about as much as any other station (except MSNBC of course).
"Best economy" is an extremely subjective term, which includes many factors, so I doubt the BEA would use that.
I also find it hard to believe that it would include the 1950's, perhaps the most prosperous time in American history.
But what is remarkable about the Reagan years what he took us from the bowels of recession to great heights of growth (cont)
Albyiscool 2 years ago
After 10 years of Reaganomics we were in what was (until Bush43) the worst economy since the Great Depression. In 1987 we had the first stock market crash since 1929. That was accompanied by the S&L scandal bailout, by 1991 the real estate market was tanking...none of these things had been seen since the last time taxes on the rich were dropped to 28%. Now they are a regular occurrence.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Continued ... Now we have Limbaugh & Faux News et al, to misinform the public & blame the Dems so that rich guys like Rupert Murdoch, Steve Forbes & Rush can still get their tax cuts.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
@mrboffo1
Are we getting back into the same arguments? Are you forgetting the post-Vietnam recession? The hyperinflation of the 70s? The recession of 2000, before Bush was even President? Looking back even further we can argue that FDR's New Deal brought us into a double-dip depression.
Albyiscool 2 years ago
(cont.) If you believe at all that policies of the past have an impact on the economic future, why shouldn't Reagan bear some credit for the boom of the 1990s? (You blame him for the bust in the 2000's after all).
You lamented before the Reagan ended US dominance in manufacturing. That is because his boom allowed people to trade up. 82 percent of new jobs were in higher-paying, higher-skilled occupations
The Forbes article is flawed because it does not take into account Congressional efforts
Albyiscool 2 years ago
From 1961-1969 was the longest period of uninterrupted GDP growth since the government started measuring quarterly GDP stats in 1947. In the 60's, we also had the lowest unemployment rates ever (3.5% in 1969). But the most important of result the liberal economic policies of every president from FDR to LBJ is real disposable income. Real disposable income during the 1960's was the highest ever. This is why the standard of living during the 1960's was the highest ever for middle income families.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
@mrboffo1
Now that is untrue. Unemployment rates in the 1950's were much lower, getting below 3% throughout much of 1953. Real disposable income has also been constantly increasing with each decade.
Unemployment was not as low in the early 60's, but what do you think spurred job creation in the late 60's and GDP growth? It wasn't liberal policies (hint: look at the video above.)
Albyiscool 2 years ago
I should have said that the 1969 rate was lowest unemployment rate in the last 50 years, but let's go with your statistic of 3%.
The top marginal tax rate in 1952 & 1953 was 92%.
I like Ike.
We should return to the tax policy that brought such low unemployment numbers don't you think? I like Ike. Doesn't your own point that the low unemployment rates in '51 & 52 indicate that the Republican meme that high taxes hurt the economy is completely inaccurate?
mrboffo1 2 years ago
@mrboffo1
Now, you bring up low employment rates in '51 and '52...but those were the Truman years. And in the end of the '40's he cut taxes. Mind you that the ridiculously high numbers we are spurting out are jus the federal income tax rate on the highest brackets.
Albyiscool 2 years ago
Or as I pointed out why not just return to the more recent rates the were successful under Reagan's 1982 tax cut, which left the top rate at 50%. That produced a dramatic economic recovery in 1984.
The disastrous economies that resulted from lower rates of 28% in 1987, 24% in 1929 & 35% in 2003 suggest that there is a happy median range between the low rates that produce stock market & real estate crashes & the higher rates that were periodically lowered to stimulate growth during recessions.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
@mrboffo1
I am not opposed to a tax rate that is progressive...but to tax anything more than 50 or 60% of anybody's income is criminal. I hope we never return to them, and I think we can thank JFK and certainly Reagan for that.
Albyiscool 2 years ago
Under the 70% top rate imposed under Kennedy's tax cut, it doesn't mean that they took 70% of the total amount. A progressive tax is a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases. So under the 1964 tax law, only income earned in excess of $200k was taxed at the 70% rate.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
@mrboffo1
I am aware of this. But that is still grossly excessive, no matter who is being taxed
Albyiscool 2 years ago
And yet this is the would be the new tax law that Kennedy was introducing in this Scott Brown campaign add.
So this goes back to my original point that it is disingenuous of Senator Brown to use this footage in his ad, don't you think?
mrboffo1 2 years ago
@mrboffo1
Completely disagree. Kennedy's tax cuts were still very drastic, and made possible the tax cuts that would come in the future. I would even go so far to argue that Kennedy would be considered a moderate conservative today.
Albyiscool 2 years ago
Albyiscool, how ironic that you would say that. They tried to brand Kennedy a Communist because of his progressive ideas like building more schools and unemployment compensation. Amazing how half a century can give a whole different perspective. It irks me how so many politicians try to emulate him yet they are doing the same thing to Obama now that they did to Kennedy then. Only difference, JFK had way more guts and took on his enemies head on, Obama just keeps doing the dance of avoidance.
StarLite9152 2 years ago 2
@StarLite9152
Interesting. I don't think any of those things were new ideas, nor were they exclusively "progressive". Eisenhower had those same ideas.
What many people ignore is that Kennedy was much more right wing than he is made out to be. He was a warmonger by anybody's standards, and lowered taxes.
schnookypoodle 2 years ago
Can't agree with the warmonger monikor. Just listen to his speeches, he speaks of peace all the time and an end to war. After being nearly killed in WWII and seeing how many private corporations profited off of other's suffering, he was turned off of war. Listen to his speeches at JFK: My Business Was Mankind on youtube. He speaks of US Steel raising their price by $6 a ton while everyone else is told to tighten their belt and soldiers are dying in Vietnam. He was furious over their action.
StarLite9152 2 years ago
To do that spending would have to be cut,and unfortunately no one is willing to do that.
35baptist 2 years ago
YOU do not understand what drives the economy, getting money into the government pockets isnt from TAXING so high there cant be growth. The tax rates have to reflect economic growth. Taxing UNearned income at 70% might be ok, but you cant do it when our only growth is short selling dollars overseas. The republicans didnt vote for the privatization of SS ( and it was a small amount, not all) because of the LIBERAL press scaring people about RISK, wich was NON existant in BOND FUNDS
Formulabruce 2 years ago
In the entire time from the end of the Great Depression until the oil crisis of the 1970's there were no severe recessions, no bank crises, no housing market collapses & stock market crashes. At no point during that time was the top marginal tax rate less than 70%.
My whole point to this entire thread is that conservatives would scream bloody murder if Scott Brown or anyone else talked about returning to the tax rates that resulted from the proposal that JFK is introducing in this ad.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have been repeating this all over this thread, but it needs repeating.
JFK's tax cut closed tax loopholes that were available for those in the highest income bracket. That cut resulted in the richest paying more $ in taxes even though the top marginal tax rate was cut. Evidence of this is that government revenues went up after JFK's tax cut & they went down after the Reagan tax cuts. JFK stated his intention to close these loopholes during the TV debates with Nixon in the 1960 campaign.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
@mrboffo1
Overall though you mistakenly attribute Democratic presidents with liberal economic policies. Bill Clinton reigned in spending and JFK lowered taxes. Reagan also lowered taxes and spending, but made it his priority to switch spending to the military for his foreign agenda.
I will conclude (finally) by saying that the Forbes article also equates government spending with economic stability...and that is very frightening indeed.
Albyiscool 2 years ago
Nice try. The top tax rate after JFK's tax cut became law was still 70%, twice as high as it is now.
Clinton raised taxes 8.6% in 1993 to a top rate of 39.6% & not one Republican voted for it. Without those tax increases Clinton's deficit reductions would not have been feasible.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
@mrboffo1
A 20% drop from 90%...and Clinton's tax rate was still half of that and according to you, that era of prosperity was even greater. So even if Clinton did raise taxes (don't forget that George Bush Sr. also raised taxes) it was still a relatively low tax rate.
All that aside, can you imagine the sheer robbery of a 90% tax rate? Thank God we are no longer there. Liberals cannot fathom the idea that maybe we should cut spending AND cut taxes to prevent a deficit.
Albyiscool 2 years ago
The high tax rates that preceded the JFK's administration were in place since the end of WWII. Ike fully supported these 91% top tax rates through the 1950's for the reason that it took that long to pay for the cost of WWII, kind of the opposite of the modern day Republican.
The tax rates Reagan railed about when he ran for president were the same rates that JFK is proposing here. So if you support Reagan, it makes no sense to celebrate the guy who proposed those rates in the first place.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
@mrboffo1
Ike supported them because he was also a supporter of the New Deal. I don't claim that he is a conservative, since he was considered a moderate, maybe even liberal Republican.
So you are arguing that I should not support JFK because he only cut it by 20% instead of say 50% or more? I support the spirit of the tax cuts, I realize such drastic change cannot be done all at once. 20% is still significant and allowed futured presidents to lower the rates even more.
schnookypoodle 2 years ago
If you support the New Deal, then you are necessarily a liberal.
JFK's tax cut is completely consistent with the liberal economic principles of the time or Keynesianism. Cutting taxes during a recession is a liberal idea, assuming that you have a responsible tax policy to begin with. For the last 8 years we haven't had responsible tax policy, so now we have to make chicken salad out of chicken shit.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
@mrboffo1
There you have it then, Eisenhower was a moderate or liberal Republican (I say moderate because there are many more social issues that politicians face)
"Cutting taxes during a recession is a liberal idea"
False. Spending like a drunken sailor during a recession is a liberal idea, that is the whole theory behind Keynesian economics, no?
It was not the tax policy of the last 8 years that was irresponsible, but the spending. Hell even if he kept the taxes it wouldnt have helped.
schnookypoodle 2 years ago
Comment removed
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Ike couldn't win the office of dog-catcher today....too liberal for his party.
glennis3 2 years ago
mrboffo1>>REAGAN also forced saving money for each dollar spent. The REAL problems being bantered around here revolve around lobbyists, and the SEC and housing trying to "powerpush" the economy too fast. These are facts, loopholes were created, and BUBBLES. CONSERVATIVE economic policy makes common sense, but the SEC rules are so corrupt, and COVERED up, its really impossible to get a fiscal policy to fly. Corp tax deduductions in the US seem to only benefit big corps, leaving small ones hurtn
Formulabruce 2 years ago
I've never smoked crack, but I hear that the high is AWESOME. It's the crash afterword that's a real drag. Reaganomics is the same way. The stock market highs from the big tax cut is initially great. It's the aftermath of those cuts that is a real bitch, like it was in the 1930's, 1987, 2007-08 & nobody wants a burned out crackhead on their hands. So let's put down the crack pipe & get back to the sensible polices of regulated capitalism.
Let's get off of oil too while we're at it, bad habit.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Let's not forget the tech bubble burst of 2000 which followed Clinton's signing in 1997 of the capital gains tax cut. This was almost specifically targeted toward people who make their money from the sale of stock and stock dividends. Another failure for supply side theory, this time brought to us with 100% support of Republicans in Congress, a lot of Dems and signed into law by a Democrat.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
TECH bubble ostly caused by M to M accounting, AND the RULES on the SEC, NOBODY talks about the HUGE corurpution in the SEC. The SEC is responsible for most of the bubbles and the wealth transfer problems.Congress cant control the SEC. What say you mrboffo?
Formulabruce 2 years ago
we have our own oil, to regulate capitalism, for a small but steady growth, the SEC needs to be CLEANED OUT. In 2007 TWICE as many "dry" barrels of oil were sold on the NYMEX, vs actual "WET" barrels pumped.
Formulabruce 2 years ago
Comment removed
mrboffo1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The CRA was created in 1977 under Jimmy Carter to provide loans to lower income earners who met the financial standard home a loan, but were denied loans on the basis of red lining practices by the private lenders. So it wasn't that the loan applicants weren't qualified to receive a standard home loan, but that their loans were deemed less profitable than lending to more affluent customers by the mortgage lenders.
Damn that Jimmy Carter for giving poor people a chance at the American dream!
mrboffo1 2 years ago
You might want to check with the tax foundation in washington on your beliefs too, instead of the talking heads on your television. THe top 1% of earners only saw about 20% of the tax cuts from Bush. given that they bare almost 50% of the burden, and the bottom 40% don't end up paying tax at all, that seems fair to me. Plus, they worked. 9/11 should have crippled us, instead we got 6 years of sustained growth.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
All legal workers pay taxes:
sales, excise and most of all, payroll taxes. Starting with the first dollar they earn, virtually all American workers pay the 6.2% Social Security tax (on income up to $97,000) and another 1.45% for Medicare. An analysis by the Tax Policy Center concluded, "three quarters of filers pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes."
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Ah, You have never been poor either. You do know what a TX return is right? The earned income tax credit? Have you never earned soo little that the government owes YOU money according to tax law? (Which of course is absurd, the government doesn't have money, Middle class paychecks are where that comes from.)
And wow, the bottom 50% pay 3.9% of taxes thanks to the regressive payroll tax. Excuse me If I don't think we should name bridges after trailer park residents.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
What does its say about our country that so many don't make enough to pay income tax?
The top 1% control 42% percent of the wealth in the US. Thanks to the regressive tax & trade policies since Reagan, our manufacturing jobs are now sent overseas, undercutting American wages and thanks to the Repubs, our tax system gives American manufacturers incentive them to do it.
The average CEO makes 300 times what the average worker makes.
Who do you think should be paying most of the taxes?
mrboffo1 2 years ago
More evidence that Reagan's "trickle down" economic theory doesn't really work.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
The increase in GDP has NOTHING to do with TAXING the rich more. GDP, is NOT tax revenue to the GOVERNMENT. Mrboffo, if you want to FIX stuff how about changing the RULES in the SEC that allows people to buy oil futures on CREDIT, then default if price goes low and swap GM stcok for it, destroying the industry?? UNEARNED Dividends taz is where ya waana be, NOT the Rich who EARNED IT! ps, im poor and unemployed, and no health insurance
Formulabruce 2 years ago
HIgher taxes on business gives larger business owners greater incentive to reinvest more of their profits back into the company rather than take it all out in personal salary. (Employee pay is pre-tax.) That results in things like raises for their employees, buying more equipment etc. That is what results in greater economic activity or GDP.
When workers get paid more, they spend more. When rich people get paid more they put it into the stock & real estate markets and create economic bubbles.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
CORP tax cuts leads to expansion and more jobs... and WHY give more tax dollars to a government that cant run ANYTHING better than 50% efficiency?? example, US post office, and theres many more
Formulabruce 2 years ago
The right wing media has constantly trumpeted the false meme that the govt can't do anything. Why then didn't Republicans support Bush43's initiative to privatize Social Security in 2005? They had both houses & the White House, but Republicans in Congress pleaded with Bush not to come to their districts & talk about privatizing Social Security. Aren't you glad your Social Security wasn't in the stock market in 2007 & 2008?
Try to get Fedex or UPS to deliver a letter for 44¢.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
SS in the stock market in safe BOND funds( for the small amount that was suggested to be invested) would have yielded MORE money than the government has to show in SS now, which is NEGATIVE
Formulabruce 2 years ago
While it's true that the US has the 4th highest corporate tax rate, what Limbaugh doesn't tell you is that after deductions that are allowed under U.S. tax laws, U.S. corporate taxes are the lowest taxes of any country in the industrialized world, & corporate taxes account for about 10% of federal revenue. In the 1950's when life was good in America, corporate taxes accounted for 25 to 30% of federal revenue (i.e. they paid more taxes).
Think of that the next time the Pigman bitches about it.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
@ boffo. It's not that soo many don't make enough to pay taxes. Our poor live better and get compensated more than most people on the planet, even in the industrialized world. That foreign opinion you libs thrive on is that even our poor are gluttons!! No, the reason they don't get taxed is the liberal movement's tactic of using envy to turn the poor into a permanent voting block. If the poor would stop worrying about what everybody else has, they would realize how good they have it.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
It was the tax cuts under Reagan & Bush41 which created the incentive to flood the stock and real estate markets with extra $ that created the stock market bubble / crash of 1987 & real estate bubble which crashed in the early 1990's.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
True, but it's hard to sell the idea that a policy worked too well, thus do the opposite, which has never worked at all. Were those "crashes" anything like what we got thanks to liberal subprime mortgage mandates? Not even close.
If letting employers keep more of the money they use to pay employees with is what's causing our current economic problems, why doesn't Obama undo the Bush tax cuts? Healthcare costs didn't cause this, jsut fix the problem. He knows he can't that's why.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
The subprime mess would not have happened without the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, that happened with the passage of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 signed by Bill Clinton. The bill passed almost exclusively with Republican votes. The right wing noise machine have lamely tried to blame this on liberals. The subprime mess was caused by years of effort by the right to roll back regulations put in place by liberals like the great Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930's.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
The 20's saw a 60% increase in government revenue, it was Hoover's tax hikes that caused the decline.. Christ. Here, get a clue from your hero:
"It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits" -JFK.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
Taxes went up in 1932 under Hoover. We were already 2 years into the Republican Great Depression when he raised taxes.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
No, we were 2 years into a cyclical recession, Hoover's tax increases turned into a depression. Why do you think things kept getting worse throughout his presidency? The tax hikes obviously didn't help, to say the least.
Kinda sounds familiar, almost like something going on right now. As if another president was forgoign sound fiscal corrective policy to fulfill a tax and spend agenda, making a mild recession worse.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
The unemployment rate was at 29% in 1932.
That's a little more than just cyclical. That's catastrophic.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
So the cons had from 1921 to 1933, twelve years of 100% Republican control of the White House, both houses of Congress, the lowest tax rates of the last 100 years from 1924 to 1931?
They had all that. Everything they could ever want & they couldn't stave off the worst economy ever?
The highest unemployment rate ever?
What more can you ask for?
FAIL!
No such failure ever occurred under a Democratic president
mrboffo1 2 years ago
You are ignorant, that is not true and also Jimmy Carter was the president who forced banks to loan to people who did not have the proper credit thus creating the subprime market. Banks who did not lend where penalized. FACT
Imaketv20years 2 years ago
I should correct your misapprehension that because JFK said that "what we are trying to do is entirely different" somehow implies that he is supporting anything less than a public option. What is being discussed in that speech resulted in Medicare, which is not a public option. It is a govt. mandate paid for by your & my taxes & our participation is not an option, we don't have to participate in the Medicare system if we live that long, but neither do we have the option of not paying for it.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Boffo, not only is Medicare the best example of how government is not the answer, running almost as bankrupt and corrupt as social security, but you contradicted yourself. The "public option" isn't really optional. Medicare is a taxpayer funded helping hand you can choose. The dem plan is a mandate that you not only have to pay for, but is designed so that everyone will eventually have to participate in. It's a system that has been a proven failure all over the world.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
The public option would be optional under the proposal to create a govt run exchange which consumers could elect to buy into the system. Even better is the proposal to give people the choice to buy into Medicare rather than be stuck with private insurance that will only rip them off & cancel their policy when they get sick & need the coverage; coverage that have already paid for through their premiums. The current system offers limited choice to consumers; less choice for those with less money.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
If only the public option was as purely motivated as the liberals would have us believe. Did you miss the part of the bill that doesn't allow you off of the Public Option once you're on it? Or how the government can fund it at financial loss, driving the competition out of business through a price war? Or did you even realize that the only reason it seems affordable is that it won't start til ten years after we get taxed for it? (long after the CBO's rules allow it to project, sneaky bastards.)
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
LESS COMPETITION< HIGHER COST
Formulabruce 2 years ago
So make the private insurers compete with the public system. That's what France does and they have the best healthcare system in the world according to the World Health organization.
That would keep the private insurance cartel honest. They don't want to be honest.
The private insurers love Medicare. It takes the most expensive people out of the private sector when they are most likely to have an expensive health issue shoves them over to Medicare.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Do you just swallow everything the media spins your way? The WHO doesn't say France has the best healthcare system in the world, or that we have one of the worst. They say that Europeans are healthier people. I would probably eat better and bike to work more often too if I had to go through what the french do to get treated. Nobody has disease survival rates, and rising life expectancy like the US. Socialized systems around the world are failing, and you want to try one out. Unbelievable.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
You can find many polls in the mainstream media showing widespread support for the public option if you google "public option support", even Fox has reported this; then again you can believe what you choose. The greatest proof of overwhelming public support of govt. run health insurance is the fact no Repub would even think of voting to kill Medicare. During the recent debate in the House, Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner offered a proposal to repeal Medicare & not one Repub would support it.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Again, you're confusing medicare and this democrat healthreform power grab. the only reason we can't get rid of Medicare is because too many now depend on it. We don't have a choice. What we have right now is the opportunity not to make the same mistake twice. We should know enough now not to trust government with our lives like that. I think the best proof that the Public Option is a failed concept, is that you can't get all the DEMOCRATS to support it. Repubs aren't your problem!!
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
You know, for some reason you want to trust Obama that much, fine. Go ahead, put that much power in the hands of a Governemtn that was never intended for it. Don't come crying to me when in 2012 Sarah Palin has the authority to restrict reproductive rights as a budget line item. That's EXACTLY the kind of thing you are voting to make a possibility.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
PUBLIC SUPPORT is for REFORMS, and thats high, and needed, NOT a whole new Government run HUGE EXPENSE...
Formulabruce 2 years ago
As for your healthcare farse, your side is spinning like a top trying to answer for the huge loss in MA. They say the Washington times poll shows 68% of Brown voters approve of Obamacare. In reality, that question asks if it was a factor. When the poll asked about approval, 80% of Brown voters, and 44% overall OPPOSE both the MA and Obamacare reform bills. This is from one of the bluest states in the union! the fundamental flaws of government healthcare gave Brown the election.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
The top tax rate when JFK ran for president was 90%.
The current top tax rate is 35% regardless if you are making $100,000 or $100,000,000. The person making $100 million and takes home $65 million can afford to kick in some more taxes compared to the person taking home $65,000.
And if that person taking home $65 million is going to quit working because he had to pay some extra taxes, then I am sure there are a million people who would love to make 1/100 of that and pay the extra taxes.
mrtpitiesdafool 2 years ago 5
The United States built the greatest economy in the history of the world in the decades following WWII under those high tax rates which you cite. That is the ultimate proof of the fallacy of Reaganomics that I can think of. Since Reagan's 1987 tax cuts taxes have been too low and our bubble-crash-bailout cycle has been the result.
The way conservatives scream about deficit spending you would think that Ronald Reagan had submitted a balanced budget at least once.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
No, the United States became the greatest economy because of all the private industry factories that swtiched to manufacturing weapons for the war. Government in WWII acted like a customer instead of the boss, which is why it worked. That's how they got out of the Depression, which was a part of the Bubble-burst cycle that already existed.
I'm sorry, but if you never figured out that your college professors were not the smartest people in the world, there's no hope for you.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
The top marginal tax rate during WWII started at 88% in 1942 & by 1945 the top tax rate was 94%. That rate continued to stay at 91% until, JFK's cut lowered it to 71%. From WWII until the oil crises of the 1970's there was not one severe recession, not one banking crisis, no stock market or real estate crashes. But it wasn't until Reagan's '87 tax cut that the bubble cycle begin again.
I thought that high taxes on the rich & regulations killed economic growth? Looks like you're wrong again.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
The during the war the government was the boss. FDR told the auto makers & other big manufacturers that they were now going to be making armaments & dramatically limited their share of the profits through heavy taxation. This has been described as a command economy which is synonymous with socialism. So if you're citing the WWII economy as an example for a good formula for success then are making an argument for socialism.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
The war effort providing a market for starving manufacturers, and the socialist government ownership of an entire industry are not essenitally the same. Just come out and claim socialism works, so we can all laugh at you and get on with our day.
You also ignore that war funds went straight back into the corporate manufacturers, creating a sustainable system. Milking employers doesn't work. Low taxes increase government revenue.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If low taxes increase government revenue, then why did the national debt triple under Reagan & then Bush41 added another 1.5 trillion to the debt in 4 years?
Was it just that Reagan was an incompetent manager of the the government?
mrboffo1 2 years ago
A sustainable system even though the top tax rate was 94%?
So, according to you, high taxes din't hurt the economy?
mrboffo1 2 years ago
You ignore the fact that this was the greatest govt. jobs program in history, a stimulus plan that worked by the fact that the Republicans didn't have the political footing to water it down with tax cuts for the rich. Since Reagan, our tax & trade policies have given every incentive for corporations to lay off workers & ship jobs overseas rather than keep them here & give raises to keep up with the cost of living as our policies did before corporate fascists took control of the US govt in 1981.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Medicare was a jobs program? You must be kidding. If anyone had listened to those that opposed this measure, we wouldn't have to throw money down medicare in what Obama called "waste and fraud." the reagan era was one of the most prosperous times for everyone in this country, poor and rich alike. Why, because he didn't falsely pit one against the other. He used the system in the way that benefits everyone. You had Clinton for 8 years. Why didn't his anit corporate tax hike bring jobs back?
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
WWII was the greatest jobs program in history, not Medicare.
Clinton did raise corporate taxes added 23 million jobs to the economy in 8 years. I think we can call that a success.
The "waste and fraud" Obama was referring is the Republican tax payer rip-off known as Medicare Prescription D. Written by health insurance & pharma lawyers, passed under a Republican Congress & signed by Bush43. It is wasteful, expensive & unnecessary.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
How would you call Clinton's economic policy a "success?" He took a thriving economy based on low tax policy, took credit for it, then did a 180 and left us in a recession, killed the tech boom, and sucked a trillion dollars out of the free market to accomplish......nothing. (He started two wars too, you know) Don't tell me you're one of these numbskulls that believe that "Surplus" garbage are you? I got a bridge in Alaska to sell you if that's the case.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
Did I mention that Bill Clinton created more jobs in his 8 years than any other president in history?
That's 23 million jobs.
5 million more than Reagan.
20 million more than Bush43.
mrboffo1 2 years ago
Listen to this, people! Bill Clinton was personally responsible for creating all those jobs. He went into towns and cities, opened up businesses, managed budgets, and hired people. That motherfucker did everything!
drunkenstooge 2 years ago