HOW ABOUT THEM DODGERS? (Raising taxes on the rich)

[hymiehymie]

SORRY TO TAKE SO LONG TO APPROVE RECENT COMMENTS. I DIDN'T REALIZE I HAD NOTIFICATIONS SITTING ON G-MAIL, WHICH I NEVER LOOK AT.

[laurenmichellekinsey]

The richest 10% of Americans own over 80% of stocks on the stock market. The profits they make from stocks are taxed at a super low 15% rate.

[laurenmichellekinsey]

Check out Citizens for Tax Justice. They have excellent data on the negative effects of tax cuts. Just the cold hard facts. Google Citizens for Tax Justice.

[WKHalford]

@laurenmichellekinsey Negative effects of tax cuts? Like economy-boosting money from tax cuts that CITIZENS would be able to spend on goods and services, which creates other tax dollars from both sales and more jobs/income? Like the money from tax cuts citizens could save for hard economic times, which is money they could then spend to keep themselves alive AND help boost the economy at a time when they might have no money to do so otherwise?

How did the US survive BEFORE federal income tax?

[vechorik]

Stop the waste and stupid-spending first. Then close tax loopholes. Then, if the US must have new revenue, get millionaires off government benefits of any kind: farm subsidies, VA, Social Security, Medicare, green energy......then we'll talk about a national sales tax to get some money from crooks/illegals.........then talk about raising taxes after those things have been taken care of.

[MntlWard]

Do I have to comment to add one of YouTube's new reactions?

[MntlWard]

It seems commenting didn't even do that. :-/

[WKHalford]

@MntlWard PART 2:

The law passed in '78 (by Carter) made it easier for people to buy houses they otherwise wouldn't have had the credit to buy.

That law was expanded in '98 (by Clinton), making easier still for people to buy houses they wouldn't have had the credit to buy, and many didn't have enough INCOME to afford them.

This caused such a rapid growth that the housing market became saturated. Housing/real estate jobs dwindled, causing a ripple effect in the economy.

To be continued...

[wibrilify]

@WKHalford Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn. Yeah, that's what I thought, got your number pard, not interested in your Republicans Good / Democrats Bad visa versa crap. Like I said, hominids will seek out the stats that "prove" whatever they choose to believe. Fact is, they're all on the same team, just quibbling factions of the ruling class. Since the oligarchs run the political system it's not very surprising they would need the masses to believe our comfort relies upon giving them what they want.

[WKHalford]

@wibrilify When I said "Historical statistics prove it.", you said "Show us." Yet YOU have yet to show ME any facts to prove me wrong.

I found a US Bureau of Labor Statistics website that shows unemployment was lower when Reagan left office than when he took office: In '81, unemployment was 7.6%. It peaked at 9.7% in '82, but dropped to 5.3% in '89 when he left office.

Iwww.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

[wibrilify]

@WKHalford You're still attempting to locate the point. Both quibbling factions of the ruling class are essentially on the same team, the endless scrum is over who will be in line for lobby funding over the next election cycle. The oligarchs take care of their own. The vote of the common man is meaningless since only the aristocracy can run and they do not represent the masses. It's a false democracy and the peasants fund the lifestyles of the Lords. Wake up bub, it's feudalism

[WKHalford]

@wibrilify Fortunately, You Tube let me give the website link, but probably only because I accidentally added an "l" before the address, so You Tube probably didn't recognize it as a website address.

Anyway, these stats are proof. It's not proof I made up, nor is it proof that I skewed to make a point. They are FACTS. You have shown no FACTS.

And it's not a "Republicans Good / Democrats Bad" type of thing. I only stated what I stated to balance out the hype and falsehoods in this video.

[wibrilify]

@WKHalford Read thru your posts again, it is Reps vs Dems w/ Reagan as the messiah with you. Reagan changed how unemployment numbers were calculated to make the numbers appear more favorable during his term, and then Clinton did the same thing again during his term. Not interested in your googleoff challenge, you really don't pay attention do you. Take a look at the vast transfer of wealth away from the middle class to the top over the past 6 decades. Bipartisan, only place you'll see it.

[WKHalford]

@wibrilify Funny, if Reagan changed how unemployment numbers were calculated, then WHY would he have allowed the number to show a jump from '81 to '82?

If Reagan changed how unemployment numbers were calculated, then wouldn' t the numbers after that point drop suddenly, instead of gradually?

[WKHalford]

@wibrilify Yep, 3 days later and I still see no facts or evidence to prove me wrong.

And just like the link shows that I posted 3 days ago, unemployment was lower when Reagan left office than when he took office, which is a good indicator of a strengthening economy.

[WKHalford]

@wibrilify By the way, I posted what I posted with the simple intent of trying to offset this obviously one-sided video.

You get on to me for posting about Reagan, making out as if I'm one sided, yet I see you posting ABSOLUTELY NO CRITICISM about the video itself, WHICH DOES THE EXACT SAME THING that you criticize me for.

Amazing...

[girlgrey]

Oh Jimbo! Wonderbar!!! Send it to Thom. xxxp

[WKHalford]

It talks about "trickle-down voodoo trickery", yet when Reagan left office the economy was significantly better than when he got in office. When Reagan took office, he inherited a worse economy than Obama did.

The rich still paid a higher percentage if their salary in federal taxes when Reagan was in office, and still do. If you don't believe me, look at a 1040 form tax chart.

The working man works for the rich. Higher taxes on the rich means less money for job-creating investments.

[wibrilify]

@WKHalford Horse hockey, that amounts to human sacrifice. Be nice to the oligarchs and perhaps they'll let you keep your head. America is still a colonial enterprise and the masses are sharecroppers. Sans a well-heeled lobby effort you have no voice in this illusion of democracy. There has been a subversive wealth redistribution scheme over the past 60 years, but not in the direction you folks are always soiling yourselves over. There will come a reckoning, and it won't be pretty.

[WKHalford]

@wibrilify What part of what I said exactly is "horse hockey"? That when Reagan took office that he inherited an economy worse than Obama did? It's true. So is the FACT that when Reagan left office, the economy had improved significantly, proving the "trickle-down voodoo trickery" worked.

Historical statistics prove it.

The rich investing their money in job-creating ways is also FACT. So is that the working man usually works for the rich.

So tell me, what part exactly of my post is wrong?

[wibrilify]

@WKHalford "Historical statistics prove it." Show us. While you're at it, show us all the burgeoning middle class doing so well. I’m well aware many of you consider Reagan to be the second coming and to be sure, he was very good for some americans.  Guess it just depends upon who you identify with. At that point, hominids will then seek out the stats that "prove" whatever they choose to believe. The Bush cabal were followers of Reagan too. Who did Obama inherited his economy from again?

[WKHalford]

@wibrilify PART 1:

There's plenty of statistical data showing unemployment numbers and other data during Reagan's term. Most had improved. You Tube won't let me post website links.

And Reagan inherited HIS economy from Carter...

The main reason for the economy Obama inherited being bad is due to the housing market bust. The main reason the housing market bust (and the snowball effect it caused on the financial markets) was due to a law passed in '78 and expanded in '98.

To be continued...

[WKHalford]

@wibrilify PART 3:

Many of those people who had lost jobs/reduced income couldn't pay for those houses they had bought, so they defaulted, causing an even bigger glut in the housing market, more failed lending/financial institutions, and an even bigger snowball effect.

BTW, I'm middle class. My jobs/income over the years has NEVER had anything to do with who was president or which party had the majority. There's MUCH more to it than politics, and your understanding of that is too simplistic.

[kimsings]

I love it!!!! Thanks a million, no, make that a billion gatrillion! IF ONLY.....

THANKS Jim!!!

[memoircity]

Terrific song! Have you sent it to KPFK in Los Angeles? It's the kind of song Pacifica Radio would love -- and This American Life might snap up for an appropriate show. Well said and well sung. Thank ye kindly!

[konopelli]

Jimbo, I prefer your version to Bernie Sanders'!