Art Laffer explains the Laffer curve on Glenn Beck Show

[Nigeltheginger1]

fuck you for talking so quiet, glenn beck

[DrPepperAndSteak]

Even though it failed to a substantial extent, their is a lot of truth in Reaganomics.

[apex02001]

I can barely hear the audio.

[Tsnore]

Is Glenn Speck in a dark place somewhere now wanking his sausage?

[DCUPtoejuice]

Give Peter his penny already you schmuck!

[juicejon1]

you owe peter schiff a penny laugher

[YAYI1IMAVERICK]

Laffer is smart, he is using common sense.

The United States has to have competitive tax rates so that businesses want to stay in the United States.

Capitialism has a lot of benefits as long as you keep the rich assholes from cheating everyone and stealing all the money.

A lot of people should be in jail, including a lot of politicians.

[tugboat2030]

Oh, yes the added revenue would be at least $500 billion. This would hurt the economy but the benefit to our nation's fiscal bottom line would be better combined with reduced spending. Also the Bush tax cuts were in place during the 2008 recession. Why didn't the tax cuts prevent the recession?

[tugboat2030]

"Tax revenue correlate with economic growth, not tax rates." Agree. But tax cuts do not create economic growth. In fact, this fact from the Hertiage Foundation proves the point.

[tugboat2030]

Well, that's quite a lot to respond to in a Youtube comment. I will say that Heritage only used 2006 figures as a percentage of GDP for their myth, many other Bush years (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008) were lower any Clinton year as percentage of GDP. FY 2003 income tax revenue was 80 billion dollars less than the previous year, FY 2001 ITR brought 70 billion dollars less than the previous year.

[tugboat2030]

I've seen the debt clock, thank you. Rising constantly during the Bush administration and McConnell and Boehner seemed not to care.

[creptoin1]

@tugboat2030 "Rising constantly during the Bush administration" due to spending, not tax cuts. proof: heritage (dot) org/research/reports/2007/01/~­/media/Images/Reports/bg2001/b­g2001table_1_lg_1.ashx

"Raising taxes would generate more revenue at this point" wrong! see link ^

"tax cuts did not generate more revenue as the Laffer thinking goes" they did in the 80's, tax cuts are not going to fix everything. ohh and revenue did increase due to the bush tax cuts.

[creptoin1]

@tugboat2030 "Did the 2003 Bush tax cuts raise government revenue? Nope." yes they did. read it all.

heritage (dot) org/research/reports/2007/01/t­en-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cu­ts

[tugboat2030]

Raising taxes would generate more revenue at this point, I believe. The 2003 Bush tax cuts did not generate more revenue as the Laffer thinking goes; we have the stats for that. Obama proposed a 3:1 spending cut to revenue increase plan that many (not necessarily all) Republicans would not support. The Jerry Baum reference was to something said in the video, not anything you said. The government cannot constantly grow or hurt the economy, the best thing it can do is to get its house in order

[creptoin1]

@tugboat2030 "Obama proposed a 3:1 spending cut to revenue increase plan" they have to cut almost 1.5Trillion at least. so do the math and that adds up to .5Trillion in "revenue". now how many jobs will be lost if you take .5Trillion out of the market? A lot!

The People need "domestic tranquility" not crazyness and complicated thousand page long rules on how the government legally steals from them. FAIR TAX! all the way.

[tugboat2030]

According to the Laffer curve, the tax rate apparently should be 50%

[creptoin1]

@tugboat2030 Wrong, look at 2:14 listen to what he says.

[tugboat2030]

@creptoin1 My comment was a bit tongue in cheek. Hauser's Law isn't necessarily true, as it only draws conclusions about the post-WWII economy, where income taxes have never been lower than the rate they are now. Laffer and Beck constantly talk about 70% tax rates, which no major Democratic leadership is proposing, when raising taxes to pre-Bush levels would be the responsible thing to do. I have no idea who Jerry Baum is, maybe someone can enlighten me.

[creptoin1]

@tugboat2030 The "Laffer curve" is a basic outline that needs data. The way he drew it is all even, meaning it does not represent at what rate the majority of people would stop working or try to get around taxes or what have you.

setting tax rates at 50% would mean that the government is half of the economy. 70% means that the (U.S.)economy in the private sector would only have about 4.8Trillion to run on. That would not help people keep jobs.

[tugboat2030]

@creptoin1 I'm not sure that rates at 50% would mean the government is "half the economy." I'm not sure what that means exactly. I agree with you they should not be 50%, but they should be higher than they are now. Did the 2003 Bush tax cuts raise government revenue? Nope.

[creptoin1]

@tugboat2030 Our government gets about 2.4Trillion a year, They are spending about 3.6Trillion. Raising taxes will not solve anything, if you took all of bill gates money it wouldn't even start to scratch the surface of this problem, raising taxes only hurts an economy (even obama said that). I didn't say anything about jerry baum. I don't know who that is either. We have a combination of problems that not one thing alone can solve.

[creptoin1]

@tugboat2030 this ought to get you depressed. lol

usdebtclock (dot) org/

[ajgolfer1]

lol laffer was the one who proposed the 70% rate in the 70's....he also thought house price would go up forever

[worldnewsbbc1]

Income tax revenue in 2000 was 1.3 trillion dollars. Income tax revenue in 2010 was 1.1 trillion dollars. GDP in 2000 was 9.8 trillion. GDP in 2010 was 14.5 trillion. GDP has grown 47% while income tax revenue has declined by 10%. The laffer curve is pure unadulterated nonsense. A tax cut has NEVER resulted in a revenue increase and it never will.

[andrewrdavis9]

@worldnewsbbc1 No, that just indicates that we are on the downward sloping side of the revenue spectrum, where raising rates would raise revenue. Converse to your point, revenues increased when JFK and Reagan lowered tax rates. If you look at the one example that you listed here and dismiss the entire theorum, then you've missed the fundamental point.

[netprowlerp]

The Laughter Curve is misleading. He claims that the top tax payers will not pay their fair share due to loop holes allowing the rich to hide their money. Laffer claims that you have to tax the working class because they do not have the resources to hide their money like the rich have. Then Beck says loop holes have been closed during the term of Lord and God of the right, Ronald Reagen. You can't have it both ways.

[zenmachinefilms]

It's early 2011, when you do your taxes this year, do an extra calculation and factor in just how much percentage of your income goes to federal taxes, and see where it compares to 11%.

I don't know the answer, and aren't trying to sway anyone. I am honestly curious to see if we'd pay more or less.

[jbranstetter04]

11%! So the rich would no longer be able to avoid taxes; they would pay their fair share, whether it be income or capital gains all income would be taxed at 11% with zero deductions. Some will cry that this will hurt the poor. But how? The poor will make a living wage enough to pay the tax, because if not then they will die. No living wage, then you die. No employees, then business dies, therefore businesses will pay a living wage. I like the negative income tax minus government handouts better.

[john51880]

What the tax code does today is commit economic discrimination. By allowing our government to tax one man higher than another we all are to blame. So the next time you hear "Tax cuts for the rich" understand that was coined to excuse discrimination! Every tax payer should pay the same % per dollar earned!

[HoGraz]

@john51880 Well said. You managed to actually be fair about it instead of saying only Democrats 'are thieves' or what not. Good point.

[john51880]

@HoGraz Both sides of the isle have been guilty of gross over spending. That is the genius of the tea party's. They have supported candidates who favor cutting spending and limiting or reducing the scope and power of government. The Democrats can never copy the formula of the tea party;s. I have been angered by the action's of both party's but one is being forced to change it's evil ways via internal civil war! The favorite tool of choice for funding the purchase of votes is the tax code.

[HoGraz]

@john51880 So you feel the Democratic party is to blame for most of the spending? Are you saying the Healthcare bill will outcost everything?

[john51880]

@HoGraz No they both spent us blind! What do you mean outcost?

[HoGraz]

@john51880 Dude the Republican party the last two terms almost put us into a recession. Dick Cheaney even said deficits dont' matter. The deficit will raise taxes for years to come, but everyone thinks the republican party is the gate keeper to the economy.

[john51880]

@HoGraz Dude Obama's spending in his first two years was many times more than Bush, Clinton, Papa Bush, Reagan, and Carter COMBINED!!!! Just W's was far to much! Let me put it to you this way. If you have a steep mortgage, a couple of high car payments and loads of credit card debt none of which you can afford does flying to Las Vagas and pissing away 3 times your annual income help you out of debt?? You can not spend your way out of debt!!!! Makes no difference if your a dem or repub!

[HoGraz]

@john51880 Well that's a good observation. What spending did you think they should've cut? Seems like the idea was to prime the pump, but they could have just waited for it to cycle a bit. The economy was really tanking in 06 and 08 though so it seems like there was a try to not push it off a cliff.

[john51880]

@HoGraz All of it! Across the board! Every budget take one for the team no sacred cow! Up until now government has never done with less and that has to end! After a full blown across the board reduction in spending then we can argue about where we might want to end government intrusion into the free market by ending numerous government funded nonessential programs (National public Radio comes to mind!) but we have to start by forcing the government to change it's evil ways!

[HoGraz]

@john51880 Shit man the RIAA wanted to block all college and free-form non-profit radio stations. They and the FCA. That's essential. These asshole corporate radio like Fox just pump propaganda.

[HoGraz]

@john51880 Alright well you do have a point. The health care bill is expensive, but Republicans dropped the ball. When the economy goes down the tubes the party in office gets voted out. When the economy sunk lots of people lost their jobs etc. while the insurance companies still made huge profit off of lives. Suppose it's just like a push to get something through they never could just like Bush and all this war shit & homeland Security. Bush however didn't have any reason to do that.

[john51880]

@HoGraz Rahm Emanuel said "Never waist a good crisis" What he meant was in times of turmoil you can force things down the throats of the people that they would never tolerate normally. A nationalization of one 6th of the economy was the health care bill. Government run verses privet business I will choose the latter every time. Government is the problem with health care now, do you think more of the same will help?

[HoGraz]

@john51880 Oh i've totally heard that about pushing bills through in times of crisis. Bush really did that but it was doing away with civil rights vs throwing away money. Habeas corpus, patriot act. Those are RIGHTS. That's the reason why we are a Republic not because Republicans think we don't need any democratic process because of "Pork Barrel Spending." We're a republic because we have a body of law. 20,000 Americans without health insurance or just crummy insurance getting ripped off

[HoGraz]

@john51880 and killed for profit. That's ridiculous and it's disgraceful we're one of the last developed nations to have any kind of health care that's not a fucken joke. Capitalism is supposed to help society not the other way around plus what's the use in having a government if it can't protect your life. The insurance companies were once non-profit but we think they need to be for profit cause competition is a religion.

[john51880]

@HoGraz Sadly you buy the idea that you can be noncompetitive and thrive in a competitive environment. That is the basic flaw of liberalism. It seek to deny basic truths of life. Being born is fatal. What you do between life and death is up to you. Holding some down to make you feel better about others less fortunate or less gifted is a crime. No one should be held back from what they might be. Living, surviving and thriving is competition's basic form. Capitalism celibates competition!

[HoGraz]

@john51880 That's not always true John. The tax loopholes are there so that small businesses can't find them and only the big guys or the older businesses find them and thrive. Schools being cattle farms instead of working with the disadvantaged ones doesn't promote competition. Why do you guys always think liberalism is against competition and capitalism? That's ridiculous. Having more people in colleges promotes competition. Liberals boost the pell grant. Why do you think indians come here?

[john51880]

@HoGraz Then lets end the loopholes! As far as competition goes maybe because the libs and progressives have spent about 100 years crushing free markets and trying to regulate and tax the sun rise! They are the people who scream about the evils of "unchecked capitalism " like that has happened in this century.

[HoGraz]

@john51880 Well then you've got a point. At least there's push by some conservative groups to do things like the fairtax. I'm not sure how I feel about it but I suppose there are good motives behind. Hopefully not some crap to repeal SS. I think all the outsourcing is a joke and the GDP goes up while someone garnishes their wages. Seems like we pay less tax then other developed nations I've seen. The Corporations have lower taxes.

[HoGraz]

@john51880 Bush said outsourcing is good business. Whatever. Even republicans I talk to say it's because they're only responsible to their stockholders. Why do CEO's get paid 300 times as much as they did in 1970's? Ever heard of the golden parachute?

[john51880]

@HoGraz Outsourcing is a viable option when the business environment has been made toxic. 

[HoGraz]

@john51880 Perhaps. I seriously doubt that's the case. Seems all the manufacturing went out of the country. Germany has a still solid manufacturing base and they regulate the hell out of it.

[HoGraz]

@john51880 Really I just think most people don't care or pay attention. They just believe whatever the media tells them how the economy works. Fox is all about free market. They're just corporate douchebags. CNN is corporate too. If we didnt' have things like farm subsidies then monsanto would put everyone out of farming and own all the land. However I'm sure the department of agriculture comes around and makes sure everyone makes corn for Coca Cola.

[HoGraz]

@john51880 But everyone just let emotions get in the way. I may sound like a conspiracy theorist but having the middle class poor, taxing them higher, and cutting the taxes for the rich while outsourcing jobs seems like a terrible idea. If the Republicans think tax cuts pay for themselves they're full of shit. Why did they make a new income tax for people on the bottom @ 10%? Well anyway had we gotten out of the damn wars we'd be better off no doubt. Homeland security is a waste and infringment

[john51880]

@HoGraz Tax cuts should be linked to spending cuts. You make several poor assumptions. Tax cuts for the rich is a full admission of economic discrimination. Every tax payer should pay the same % per dollar earned. The out sourcing of jobs sounds like a great issue for the left to gain traction. But ever think why some one wants to leave? It is because the business conditions have been made lees than conducive for growth. To much Government rules, regulation, taxation, tariffs, mandates etc!

[oldspammer]

@john51880 Free trade is nice for a while, but it drains the economy, increases Gov deficits and the Gov debt. Interest charged on the debt rises with its size. Elites close factories domestically, then fund to build new ones in slave wage nations abroad. Elites vote themselves pay rises in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. The average Joe on the street cannot profit hundreds of millions from the suffering of their fellow citizens like a corporate CEO or a banker can do.

[oldspammer]

@john51880 A banker and CEO can lobby government to make previously illegal activities legal in order to cheat the rest of us out of further taxes. Ever heard of the banker bailout? Ever heard of Goldman Sachs?

Might I also remind you that Bankers and CEOs do not have to work very honestly to make a living. Their jobs involve very little physical labor and often the mental aspects are conducted by other elites or employees or hired consultants.

[oldspammer]

@john51880 Sustainable growth is a catch phrase invented by "The Club of Rome." Growth cannot continue unabated because the resource of the planet are finite and in some cases in short supply.

Elite people & their foundations who benefit the largest amount from the operation of the country are obligated to pay for the services rendered by government. The FDA is a fine example of a monopoly enforcement operation to keep disease cures from being developed by other than Rockefeller based corps.

[oldspammer]

@john51880 Check your math. If the elites operate tax exempt charitable foundations, they pay no taxes anyway. So who ever is left must pay for gov spending and interest on the debt. If upper income taxation levels are reduced as per your plan, then these people will have excess cash to spend. They will spend it on investments in China or India--growing economies with low / slave wages. To make up the shortfall in tax revenues either the debt will have to grow much faster, or higher taxes.

[john51880]

@oldspammer It is none of your business what people do with there money or how much they have! $3 of spending cut to 1$ of tax cuts until we are back to 80's levels of spending!!!!!

[oldspammer]

@john51880 "Their" money is fiat promise to pay debt-based money unless the system is changed. The system provides also to grow the money supply by fractional reserve banking practices. Any excess money in the system contributes to causing inflationary forces. Prices will rise if the cash is reserved by banks to loan out with a multiplier of 20 to 50 times. If government expenses are not covered as much by tax revenues, then deficit grows the debt that increases the interest payments due.

[oldspammer]

@john51880 Things will only get worse if trade deficits continue. Money spent on Wal*Mart made in China stuff virtually goes out of circulation here, and so must be re-spent into existence by government borrowing, raising the debt more, raising inflation, reducing the value of my savings. Soon China will have so much money, it will buy all of North America and force us into indentured servitude. I don't want to be a slave. I want a good job and one for my neighbor too. I want fuller employment.

[worldnewsbbc1]

@oldspammer Money spent on Wal Mart stuff made in China does not go out of circulation. You obviously know nothing about economics and are quite stupid. Current account deficit = capital account surplus. What that means is that if China does not purchase our exports, they lend us the money. They buy our treasuries because we run a trade deficit with them dumb ass. You have no clue and are a moron. Please do yourself a favor and simply shut up.

[oldspammer]

@john51880 If anyone's money is misdirected into sponsoring evil of wars and the elite enslaving the population of most of us, my concerns are raised.

My point is that taxes are a direct consequence of the elite's constructing the economics / banking system and liberalizing trade to such an extent as to lower American standard of living towards that of the third world by having Americans compete with the slave wages of over populated countries.

Why is voluntary servitude is encouraged?

[oldspammer]

@john51880 The world is full of tricks and traps that were set by immoral people to waste your and my time performing work for them when they are undeserving of such servitude. And if they can't enslave you and me voluntarily, they might gain money and power to do it by force. That would not be desirable.

To solve today's problems, you have to critically examine the "follow the money" credo. If money is fiat, why pay interest on that to undeserving stooges?

[oldspammer]

@john51880 Even if they spend the money domestically in the stock market or on commodities, the banking elite might trigger an economic crisis that would eliminated the market value of the equities or commodities just purchased.

"New money" will not always be spent in desirable ways. Upper income people who would pay less taxes could move out of the country or buy only foreign made goods and services. Such plans for economic prosperity would likely fail if not in line with elite's plans.

[oldspammer]

@john51880 You are basing your statement that income taxes of any kind are necessary. This is probably a false assumption.

Before the FED came into existence, how did the government fund its great works? Research that.

You will find that non-debt money was used several times, and that taxes came from import duties and tariffs.

Elite bankers drafting Fed and Income tax acts knew that fiat debt currency had to be backed by the promise of the people to pay tribute to Babylonian bankers by taxes.

[john51880]

@oldspammer Actuly I am in favor of a federal sales tax and the elimination of income tax. You are correct about the funding but that was be for the rise of the well fair state became policy.

[oldspammer]

@john51880 Income tax in USA was introduced at the same time as the FED around 1913/14. Welfare state happened after the FDR new deal was instated, after the Hoover administration when the elite and the Fed caused the 1929 stock market crash by calling in all of the OTC stock trading loans, then tightening the money supply during the subsequent years of the depression. Google Nelson Rockefeller adviser boss Fort Knox

Babylonian system is at fault. Borrowed debt leads to ruin because of usury .

[oldspammer]

@john51880 Replacing privately held Fed with an equivalent government operation is no better because Gov deficits could still be monetized into debt by selling bonds or treasury notes to international bankers who create money from nothing anyway (Rothschilds / Rockefellers / Warburg, etc).

Make banking less profitable & have less influence in credit crunches or creating economic bubbles--Lower the allowed fraction of lending vs reserves--force strict loan qualifications--audit the Fed.

[SPAMPolice1]

BOOBY CURVE, AMERICANS ARE SUCH PERVERTS. THEY SIT BEHIND THEIR COMPUTER AND MASTURBATE TO OTHER FAT AMERICANS, BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL FAT FUCKS. WHY IS GLENN BECK AND WHY ARE ALL AMERICANS SO FUCKING FAT?

[scottvska]

The government doesn't need more tax revenue. That would just increase government spending. How about reducing personal income taxes AND cutting government spending?

[albertsamerica]

@scottvska This government spends money it doesn't have - u made no logical point. Just raise the tax rate below the Optimal Tax Rate on the Laffer Curve to encourage economic growth, while still getting a good amount of revenues without hurting the economy. Starving the government of money won't stop it from spending - u should know this. You want less spending, elect leaders who will cut spending. Get more revenue without hurting economic growth.

[scottvska]

@albertsamerica Introduce an amendment that requires the government to balance its budget. That would eliminate deficit spending.

Income tax rates should be cut to increase private demand and investment, not to finance transfer payments and worthless federal departments.

[albertsamerica]

@scottvska It's easy to say "Let's get a balanced budget amendment", but the hard part is getting to different parties to compromise on spending cuts. It's easier said than done, and that's why there has never been a balanced budget amendment passed.

The only time we've had a balanced budget was when Clinton rose taxes and cut spending. The Clinton tax hike wasn't very high, and it didn't kill economic growth. Be logical, the military is not worthless.

[scottvska]

@albertsamerica Such amendment went to the House in 98-99 and lost by only a few votes. At any rate, the government will have to balance its budget soon or there won't be enough revenue for unfunded liabilities. Foreign investors will see the US as a credit risk and stop buying government treasuries.

Don't forget that a lot of the economic growth during Clinton's second term was phoney. The stock market boom was buoyed by internet companies who went public despite having no operating revenue.

[albertsamerica]

@scottvska Clinton's economic boom was caused by an internet boom? That's not all, now you're just sticking to an ideological belief. Clinton cut Capital Gains taxes in 1997 and he kept most tax rates near Reagan rates. Clinton was a great president, and if you want to engage in a debate about Clinton, let me know because you'll end up looking like a fool. Clinton was the most Reagan like democrat since JFK.

[scottvska]

@albertsamerica Bill Clinton was an awful president. Recall that during his first term he RAISED corporate and person income tax rates. He initially opposed the 97 Tax Relief Act (which was introduced by Republicans) before signing it into law. If you want to give Clinton credit for the 97 tax cuts fine, but that doesn't make him a great president. He perjured himself before a grand jury, he bombed the Serbs and he used the oval office to get laid. Oh yeah, and he RAISED TAXES.

[albertsamerica]

@scottvska He had to sign the tax cuts into law, which he did. The 8% Capital Gains tax cut was signed into law by Clinton. Clinton, with his republican congress, cut spending by 3.5% of the GDP, which led to a surplus in his final three years. Clinton also reduced regulations(Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), passed welfare reform, removed the retirement earnings test for Social Security, and passed NAFTA through congress. Taxes were only increased for the Top 1.5% (39% rate).

[albertsamerica]

@scottvska Clinton was a good president, and if i were you, i'd drop the damn ideological beliefs and use Clinton's economic success as an example of Supply-side success. Obama could learn alot from that Clinton. And for those that say NAFTA was bad, screw them - NAFTA created jobs here. People focus on the jobs lost, but jobs were created elsewhere because of NAFTA. People need to take an econ class, NAFTA was good for us.

[oldspammer]

@albertsamerica Bush Sr. selected Clinton to succeed him-Cathy O'Brien, Brice Taylor, Kay Griggs. Clinton Chronicles, Ruby Ridge, WTC 1995, Waco Siege, OKC bombing, laws to cause bad economy.

All presidents since the late 1800s=controlled. C continued their fake man made global warming efforts planned long ago. Al Gore was VP. See

Club of Rome

97% of Scientists "Do Not Believe" Man-Made Global Warming

MIComplex & fascism enslaved Americans by increasing size of debt to private Federal Reserve

[HoGraz]

@oldspammer WHAT? Bush Sr. was all puckery during Clinton's inauguration. I doubt that especially since you quoted the Clinton Chronicles which Falwell funded. Falwell is a fucken moron.

[oldspammer]

@HoGraz Dude! Clinton and Bush Sr vacation together. Google that.

Everyone must rid themselves of the illusion that there is any kind of real dialectic when it comes to party politics of leaders because the elite powers that be swoop in and begin to control their destinies from an early age so that they are willing puppets by the time that they get into office. Nelson and David Rockefeller appear to have been fostering both sides / official opposing parties since the time of FDR or earlier.

[HoGraz]

@oldspammer Oh I've heard that about Clinton and Bush. They are both Neo-Liberals and Clinton made the private prison system worse/bigger than Reagan. That bit about early age makes sense. I have seen a picture of Kennedy shaking Clinton's hand. Definitely that's how the good ol' boy system works: they develop from a young age loyalty to the system not through their own views.

[oldspammer]

@HoGraz For years the critics of the elite have pointed to what started to happen more that 1 hundred years ago. Google Lincoln assassination conspiracy Rothschild

Most of the banks that funded the industrial revolution were Rothschild owned. Google National City bank Cleveland Ohio +Rothschild

Andrew Carnegie sold his US Steel holdings to J.P.Morgan. Morgan was in Rail,Newspapers,banking. When Morgan died, J.D. Rockefeller took over his holdings. Google video search Rockefeller Oil Conspiracy

[HoGraz]

@oldspammer Yea I've read a bit about JP Morgan and the progressive era. Seems like there's no way out of the income tax being linked to the Federal Reserve. Inflation is a hidden tax.

[oldspammer]

@HoGraz Rothschild and other elites were well established war profiteers. They would fund the geopolitical landscape with fuel and influence to start and fund wars. Eustace Mullins researched and found that Rothschild provided a stream of ideas to New York elites to get the US into WW1 when the US had no interest in the Balkans. This way the US tax payers would be drained of their standard of living, owing the bankers huge sums. Google Lusitania question arms find passenger.

[oldspammer]

@HoGraz I do not know much of Falwell or his religious teachings nor political influence. By searching Google image search, one can find out if the man or his friends are Freemasons, or other Babylonian groups. He appears associated with Bush (Skulls) and masonic handshakes. Rothschild, Cecil Rhodes, Lord Alfred Milner, JP Morgan, Rockefeller, and others were all involved in what many call the "New World Order Conspiracy." Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, & his mentor at Georgetown U was Quigley.

[HoGraz]

@oldspammer He ran Liberty University.

[HoGraz]

@oldspammer Well he said 911 was a good thing and it was because of the gays and abortionists. I think he's just looney. He'd been around since the 50's. My neighbor's husband preached under him...He got Reagan elected, ran the Moral Majority in D.C. He'd get on school buses and preach to kids about hell. He said that labor unions just need to read the bible. He was an evil man.

[HoGraz]

@oldspammer That or just that looney. When he talks in interviews he seems like he has to think about what he's going to formulate which leads me to believe he didn't believe a word of it.

[HoGraz]

@oldspammer He was one of those assholes that wanted to have prayer in school.

[oldspammer]

@HoGraz Google for site scribd Carroll Quigley tragedy and hope a history of the World in our time

Then read what Clinton's university mentor had to say about the Anglo American establishment's plans. Even just reading the introduction to the book would be eye opening for many people in the world. Certain elites have been running almost all facets of our society for around 100 years. The education system, medicine, US State department, energy, funding of science and universities.

[oldspammer]

@HoGraz There are repeated claims that OKC bombing was carried out as a planned government operation. Multiple bombs were discovered in the building, some larger than the truck bomb that went off. Some believe the eye witness testimony that Timothy McVeigh's execution was staged and that McVeigh "seemed still breathing" even after pronounced dead by officials. Google Timothy Mcveigh execution breathing Susan Carlson

[HoGraz]

@oldspammer He did turn himself in...but do you think perhaps that the conspiracy theories might be a conspiracy to eliminate all government so the corporations would have more control? Obviously they control the government like the FDA, DEA etc. That one is quite obvious, but in Colorado there's a lot of libertarians there now and they're trying to say the min. wage is unconstitutional.

[oldspammer]

@albertsamerica Americans are an adaptable people--taking on multiple jobs to keep ends meet. But opening trade up completely was a bad plan because

(a) it increased the rate of trade deficits with slave wage nations where the manufacturing jobs went over a transition period where capital took flight to build the manufacturing plants there;

(b) service economy jobs have limited income levels because these people are serving a smaller group of still well paid workers.

(c) Gov deficits ramp up.

[HoGraz]

@oldspammer Good points.

[oldspammer]

@albertsamerica In a situation where Gov deficits must be serviced by debt money borrowed at interest, debt grows without bound until the interest payments exceed the economic output of the nation.

The result is enslavement to the bankers who demand that bits and pieces of the country be sold off to foreign multinational corporations also owned by foreign elites.

Each corrupt government (US or otherwise) enters into wars that further grow the debt.

Resistance is futile unless we wake up.

[HoGraz]

@oldspammer Hell someone in the 70's proposed to privatize the interstate.

[oldspammer]

@HoGraz In the 60s and early 70s the environmental movement was Hijacked by both Rockefeller and Rothschild. They formulated The Club Of Rome to foster the idea that human kind was the enemy of mother earth and that carbon dioxide was pollution and caused man made global warming. Guess who are members of the Club of Rome? Nato leadership, Al Gore, Mikhail Gorbachev, Maurice Strong, etc. They proposed a bank to trade carbon tax exchange credits & new taxes that would de-industrialize the world.

[HoGraz]

@oldspammer Woh woh woh. Now I've heard the phrase Club of Rome but I didn't know any of that. Except I had heard about the carbon tax thing. Are you sure it would be to deindustrialize the world? It would probably take away power from the oil companies. Why would they want to deindustrialize?

[oldspammer]

@HoGraz Oil is not a fossil fuel, but it is still finite like any other mined mineral, so it is running more scarce. As this happens, the price will rise unless a replacement energy is found. Search Colonel Fletcher Prouty Explains oil fossil fuel

Food is carbon, trees and green plants are carbon, coal is carbon, our energy system is largely based on carbon. If it is heavily taxed real polluters will pay cap and trade or will buy up all green companies and get credits to continue polluting.

[oldspammer]

@HoGraz If food production, energy, transportation, and so on are all taxed based on some fake carbon credits calculations, the price of everything will go up, including foreign manufactured goods that must be shipped from far away.

Rich nations are the "carbon polluters" so they will be taxed, while the emerging nations in Africa will be prevented from developing their economies and resources.

The trick is that nothing material will be done with CO2 taxes except to fund more elite businesses.

[oldspammer]

@HoGraz Statutes enacted by government will favor the puppet masters and not the masses of the profane. This is how competition is eliminated and monopolies or duopolies come to exist.

Who sponsored and invented communism? Was it rich elite capitalists who wanted to puppet master their leaders as well?

Google "Friedrich Engels" successful textile industrialist

Evidence: Kruschev Rockefeller 1964 Chase Manhattan

"recalled from a vacation at a Black Sea resort to learn that he had been fired."

[oldspammer]

@HoGraz We have a situation in politics that is muddied by the fact that the puppet masters are the likes of the Rothschild, Rockefeller, Ford, etc families or their foundations. Foundations are evil because they shelter taxes of the elite rich so that they do not have to suffer with the rest of us profane masses--all the while, the elite still control the corporations whose shares are owned by the foundations. A discrimination has to be made between fascist elitism & well regulated markets.

[HoGraz]

@oldspammer That was some serious truth my friend.

[oldspammer]

@HoGraz Zionism was a movement formulated long ago. Some conferences were run by the Rothschild family back in the 1800s about organizing the movement to succeed at plans that the family had made. Rothschild banks (according to some scholars) bankrupted much of Europe & wanted to involve the USA & England in WW1. Eventually, the Rothschilds got the Prime Minister of England to promise the Middle East country of Palestine to them possibly because of all of the wartime loans provided to England.

[oldspammer]

@HoGraz In 1933 the Zionists lead by Rothschild family members signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler called "the transfer agreement." In this agreement, Jews of the Zionist movement would emigrate to Palestine. Maybe money also was handed over (under the table?). Kuhn Loeb was run by Jacob Schiff. Jacob Schiff and his family shared living accommodations with the Rothschild family in Frankfurt. Max and Paul Warburg were bankers--partners of Schiff. Google Sidney Warburg American Farben

[oldspammer]

@HoGraz Via visiting links to the search results, one can encounter the Sidney Warburg authored book and read a bunch of it. So much of the book is detailed and accurate that no one other than Paul Warburg could have written it.

Warburg, Schiff, Rothschild, I.G. Farben, Fritz Thyssen, Prescott Bush, American I.G. Farben, Standard Oil / Rockefellers, and others seem all tied to funding the rise to power of Adolf Hitler.

Fascism = Hitler = Mussolini = those who funded it all.

[oldspammer]

@HoGraz Google Alois Hitler Rothschild

we find that Adolf Hitler was likely an illegitimate child of their house maid in Frankfurt. Accounts of Adolf's death indicate that a body double may have been the one found by the Russians who came across the bunker at the end of WW2.

Googling BBC Al Qaeda Doesn't exist

we find that those supposedly responsible for the terrorist attacks did not really exist, or were funded through the Pakistani ISI via the CIA as freedom fighters.

[albertsamerica]

@scottvska PS: I'm only looking at it through a realistic stand point. Maybe if we got rid of tax evasion with a one paged flat tax, maybe then we could keep taxes as low as 14% to 12%. More than 40% of this country doesn't even pay taxes (wonder why we have deficits.).

[scottvska]

@albertsamerica How is a flat tax any more realistic than what I proposed? Maybe you like living next door to HUD projects full of MS-13 gangs and Somalians and phoney wars. I don't. I would rather deprive the government of the means to sustain these things and leave consumers with more disposable income to spend and invest.

[albertsamerica]

@scottvska "leave consumers with more disposable income to spend and invest." The Flat tax would increase revenues without depriving consumers of disposable income, to allow the government to sustain its spending. It's about eliminating tax evasion - which 40% of our country does not pay taxes. Russia tried the flat tax and saw an increase in revenues of 21%, because tax evasion was eliminated/reduced.

More revenues is always a plus, cut spending and we can use the surplus to pay our debt.

[scottvska]

@albertsamerica A 12% flat tax would be great. Unfortunately, it won't happen with a Democrat controlled Congress.

[albertsamerica]

@scottvska PS: I get what you're saying, i'm just trying to tell you we can increase revenues without hurting economic growth. More revenues and less spending would lead to a larger surplus. And your whole view of Clinton is wrong, may i remind you he inherited the Reagan economy, which went through a small business cycle recession during Bush Sr. - a recession which ended quickly.

[scottvska]

@albertsamerica The 91-92 recession ended as a result of investment spending.

[albertsamerica]

@scottvska The 91-92 Recession wasn't even a major recession, it was a business cycle recession. A bubble popped, economic growth peaked. Plain and simple. Same goes with the recession of 2000. Even then, real median household income rose throughout the Clinton years, gdp per capita grew, revenues went up, the stock market soared, and unemployment continued to fall throughout the 90s. Not the largest economic growth in America, but you can say it was the longest.

[albertsamerica]

Respect Laffer... He's no idiot...

[leftwaffe]

Laffer and a Nobel winner was on Kuddlow recently for a 14 minute segment on taxes and then came back for a segment on currencies...if anyone could post those clips it would be of value.

[RedZone2727]

anyone know when this show was aired?

[caddyshack12190]

@RedZone2727 April 12th, i uploaded it later that night