Log in

View Full Version : DNC to Hilary ... "don't let the door hit you in the ass"



Pages : 1 [2]

Jay Zeno
05-14-2008, 06:15 PM
The 1982 Recession was a badly needed corrective ....Dem Congress.....Dems....Dem control...We're saying the same thing.

Eric Stoner
05-15-2008, 08:11 AM
I think the writer of this article slept through history class. FDR raised taxes to 79% for the top earners in the US in 1936. Ya know, during the great depression?

Oddly enough, taxes paid for public works which created employment and led to the end of the depression.



Retirees? What is the demographic? I sense a (spin)ning feeling in this article.



First of all, what the writer implies but doesn't come out and say is Social Security taxes. This whole paragraph is full of innuendo and lacking facts. Since when is middle class $200K a year? What teacher earns that kind of income in the US? The wages for public and private school teachers are a matter of public record, and not a single state in the US comes close to these kinds of numbers. Maybe a Dean at a big University might make that kind of money, but that is about it. The Dean can pay more taxes.



How close? Like within $50K? Within $1? And what the hell does capital gains have to do with earned income? Nothing.



Propaganda added for distraction.



I'm dizzy from all the spin on this article. I think the American public is smarter than that. Young people may not know the difference between a Capital Gains tax, Social Security Tax and Federal Income tax, but those of us who actually have to pay such things most certainly do know the difference.

The only people who will fall for this bullshit story are those that are either too dumb to understand (Limbaugh sheep) or are making considerably more than $200K a year and couldn't give a damn about the country so long as they get to keep turning a profit.

Larry Kudlow, the author of the above quoted blog, is a multi-gazillionaire. He has made gobs and gobs of cash a a direct result of the Bush economic policies as well as from the Iraq war. He also happens to be working directly with big corporate lobbyists for the benefit (surprise::) ) of big corporations.

Now if Larry Kudlow is against Obama, this should turn everyone's head that has lost his/her health insurance, job to outsourcing, home to foreclosure, scholarships or other social programs to budget cuts. This guy wants the majority to be impoverished. Impoverished people are easy to control, after all.

I love it when you re-write history. FDR's tax increases prolonged the Depression.
Arguably, Hoover increases helped turn a recession into a depression but it was more the actions of the Fed. W.W. II ended the great Depression. As late as 1939 unemployment was well over 10%. The Recession of 1938 was almost as bad as 1933.

Take a cop married to a teacher in Chicago and their joint income is well over $100,000. Make him a Captain married to an Asst. Principal and they're well over $200,000. Don't confuse STARTING salaries with maxed out Civil Service pay and BENEFITS. don't forget those.

Kudlow and I disagree on Obama but not on SOME of Obama's proposed policies which I admittedly do not like. Reagan cut Capital Gains taxes and revenues INCREASED. Clinton cut them and revenue EXPLODED. Coupled with spending restraint it gave us budget surpluses. Bush cut them and revenues went up.
Obama wants to ignore all that in the name of "fairness".

What I'd like to see is Obama sit down with Charlie Rangel ( it's taken him almost to age 80 to understand taxes and the economy but better late than never ) and work out a radical, simple Flat Tax or flatter tax system that treats ordinary income and capital gains the same but at lower rates.

Larry Kudlow has argued for decades for opportunity for everyone. he argues for low taxes because they work. Btw, what % of Americans own stocks? Over 50%.
it's even higher if you add in stocks owned by union pension plans.

Melonie
05-15-2008, 03:44 PM
Originally Posted by bem401
In any event, things have only gotten (much) uglier since the Dems took over Congress.

...and the GOP and their obstructionist agenda had nothing to do with that did they?

They slowed down a few things. However they also lent 'bipartisan' support to some absolutely terrible new measures. An interesting analysis of recent history begins with the early 2007 passage of the current ethanol subsidy bill by the newly elected Democratic Congress ! Start at that point and then look at any economic indicator you choose ...

Richard_Head
05-15-2008, 08:05 PM
An interesting analysis of recent history begins with the early 2007 passage of the current ethanol subsidy bill by the newly elected Democratic Congress ! Start at that point and then look at any economic indicator you choose ...LOL, that's a mighty convenient starting point isn't it ::)???

Melonie
05-16-2008, 02:57 AM
^^^ well it's one of the first things passed by the 2007 'new' Democratic majority congress who were elected in 2006. You can also look at other measures such as passage of a minimum wage increase versus unemployment levels of unskilled workers ...

Tauries
05-16-2008, 09:03 AM
Well Obamanimation isn't quite as good as Afghanastanimation....but anything beats Hillary.

Richard_Head
05-16-2008, 09:26 AM
^^^ well it's one of the first things passed by the 2007 'new' Democratic majority congress who were elected in 2006. You can also look at other measures such as passage of a minimum wage increase versus unemployment levels of unskilled workers ...Interesting how you're completely overlooking the years 2000-2006. Sorry, but to think that legislation passed last year resulted in an immediate downturn in the economy today while overlooking the previous 6 years seems a bit shortsighted to me.

Jay Zeno
05-16-2008, 03:02 PM
It's not clear yet, is it?

When you have a two-party system of approximately equal powers, there's always someone else to blame the troubles on. One can even do so and sound reasonable, although the real point is to blindly advocate one's own view.

"Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a conflict of principles." Still true over 100 years later after the quote was issued.