tea party ?'s and facts

[vinnyraptor]

fact - most economists say large scale government investment was needed to prevent the downturn from spiraling into a full blown depression. as the New York Times wrote about a Jan. 09 meeting of the American Economic Association, "nearly every economist who spoke agreed that a dollar invested in say, a new transit system or in bridge repair is spent and re-spent more efficiently than a dollar that comes to a household in the form of a tax cut."
question - President Bush's economic policies relied on tax cuts as their centerpiece, and yet the economic collapse happened anyways. how would more tax cuts reverse the situation?
fact - Obama's plan imposes a 39.6 percent tax rate on the wealthy, up slightly from Bush's 35% rate. still, the rate is far lower than many past GOP Presidents. Reagan imposed a 50% rate during his first term, Nixon had a 70% rate and Eisenhower a 91% rate.
question - Obama's been called a socialist for his plan, so does that mean Reagan, Nixon, and Eisenhower were also socialist's? why or why not?
fact - during his first term, Reagan was shocked by how much the deficit grew due to a earlier tax cut. as a result, he agreed to a tax hike that restored one third of the previous reduction. in fact, he raised various types of taxes four times during his presidency.
question - are tax increases ever appropriate or justified?
fact - Bush inherited a budget surplus but ended his presidency with large deficits. by late 2008, the national debt had increased to $11.3 trillion, an increase of more than 100% from the beginning of 2000, when the debt was 5.6 trillion.
question - why were no Tea Party protests held during Bush's presidency?
fact - Bush allowed the "pay as you go" policy to expire in 2002. the U.S. then began to borrow huge amounts of money from China and other nations.
question - was this prudent fiscal action? why did the GOP controlled congress allow this to happen?

 

[nwdyr]

tea party now because Obama spending is OUT OF CONTROL! Experts say its approx. 5x's that of Pres,Bush. Watch ANY news channel and they will all say, what a hand full of us said a year ago "this man has NO plan , other then to spend and GIVE away what is left of our country. He also runs around and apologizes for "Americas behavior" THEN he sends MORE troops into "war". He is a idiot and proves that every time he speaks. Good luck to all you idiots who voted race and nothing else , next time listen to the man , dont just look at his skin color. "no new taxes" and " I will tax the rich" have been bull*&^% Promises since I can remember . I am 47yrs old.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by nwdyr
http:///forum/post/3233558
tea party now because Obama spending is OUT OF CONTROL! Experts say its approx. 5x's that of Pres,Bush. Watch ANY news channel and they will all say, what a hand full of us said a year ago "this man has NO plan , other then to spend and GIVE away what is left of our country. He also runs around and apologizes for "Americas behavior" THEN he sends MORE troops into "war". He is a idiot and proves that every time he speaks. Good luck to all you idiots who voted race and nothing else , next time listen to the man , dont just look at his skin color. "no new taxes" and " I will tax the rich" have been bull*&^% Promises since I can remember . I am 47yrs old.
OK, so what's the alternative? Cut spending? What happens when spending is cut to critical government programs? We the people lose in the long run. Sooner or later those cuts in spending result in taxes going up. Happens every time. The Federal Govt. needs money to operate. It has to come from somewhere. You either spend money you don't have in hopes that the money you spent will pay for itself over the long run, or you raise taxes to get that needed money for the programs where you cut the budgets. Now the best thing the Feds could do to cut spending is whack useless programs and pork legislation. But we know that'll never happen. Congressmen have been lining each others pockets for as long as I can remember, and will continue to do so until someone has the balls to stop them.

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3233553
fact - Obama's plan imposes a 39.6 percent tax rate on the wealthy, up slightly from Bush's 35% rate. still, the rate is far lower than many past GOP Presidents. Reagan imposed a 50% rate during his first term, Nixon had a 70% rate and Eisenhower a 91% rate.
question - Obama's been called a socialist for his plan, so does that mean Reagan, Nixon, and Eisenhower were also socialist's? why or why not?
Your facts are way misconstrued. First of all, I don't see Tea Partiers anywhere calling Eisenhower a hero and model, and they don't align with the GOP. Second, while the rate under Eisenhower was 91%, it was a marginal tax rate. Someone making $400,000 was not taxed 91%, they were taxed 91% for every dollar OVER that. Third, this was a tax on the rich...$400,000 back then was MUCH more than it is today. Fourth, Obama's planned increase would affect the middle class, not just the rich. You aren't comparing apples to apples.

 

[reefraff]

Fact: When the top marginal tax rate was 91% there was a multitude of write offs available that were eliminated when Reagan slashed the rates.
Fact: Most economist don't say all that spending was needed.
Question: When the Democrats took control of Congress, where ALL spending bills are created the unemployment rate was 4.5% and we had strong job creation. Who screwed everything up, Bush or the Democrats? After the tax cuts were in place the economy soared for better than 3 years. Hard the blame things on that.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3233561
OK, so what's the alternative? Cut spending? What happens when spending is cut to critical government programs? We the people lose in the long run. Sooner or later those cuts in spending result in taxes going up. Happens every time. The Federal Govt. needs money to operate. It has to come from somewhere. You either spend money you don't have in hopes that the money you spent will pay for itself over the long run, or you raise taxes to get that needed money for the programs where you cut the budgets. Now the best thing the Feds could do to cut spending is whack useless programs and pork legislation. But we know that'll never happen. Congressmen have been lining each others pockets for as long as I can remember, and will continue to do so until someone has the balls to stop them.
Explain the dynamic that would cause taxes to go up if the government cuts spending.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3233676
Explain the dynamic that would cause taxes to go up if the government cuts spending.

Depends on where the spending cuts occur. If you cut spending on FEMA, Department Of Transportation, or any social services, where will the money come from to keep these critical departments running? Cut major spending on DOT, and where do you get your money for the upkeep of our national highway system? The Feds will raise the gas tax to offset the cost. Cut FEMA spending, and you'll see tax hikes the next time the US has multiple hurricanes hit its coasts.

 

[stdreb27]

Where did they find all these economists China?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3233705
Depends on where the spending cuts occur. If you cut spending on FEMA, Department Of Transportation, or any social services, where will the money come from to keep these critical departments running? Cut major spending on DOT, and where do you get your money for the upkeep of our national highway system? The Feds will raise the gas tax to offset the cost. Cut FEMA spending, and you'll see tax hikes the next time the US has multiple hurricanes hit its coasts.
Now you are thinking like a DC Liberal. If the government isn't spending money on things like Fema and DOT why do you need funding for them, the government isn't spending money on them.

Of course this is typical DC thinking. On one hand they "decrease" funding for a project then push for a tax increase to pay for the program they just cut funding for.

 

[uneverno]

Eliminate the unconstitutional graduated income tax.
Eliminate the Federal Reserve CORPORATION.
Eliminate Fractional Reserve banking.
Return the responsibility of regulation of the currency and the coining of money back to Congress - make them put their money where their flappy jaws are.
Re-institute the constitutionally provided for poll tax.
Mandate that Congress be subject to (and cannot be exempted from) the laws they pass.
Pass a balanced budget ammendment which allows for deficit spending in times of economic downturn, but which also requires that the money borrowed be the first budgetary priority in pay back when the treasury is flush.
I say this as a Liberal.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3233932
Eliminate the unconstitutional graduated income tax.
Eliminate the Federal Reserve CORPORATION.
Eliminate Fractional Reserve banking.
Return the responsibility of regulation of the currency and the coining of money back to Congress - make them put their money where their flappy jaws are.
Re-institute the constitutionally provided for poll tax.
Mandate that Congress be subject to (and cannot be exempted from) the laws they pass.
Pass a balanced budget ammendment which allows for deficit spending in times of economic downturn, but which also requires that the money borrowed be the first budgetary priority in pay back when the treasury is flush.
I say this as a Liberal.
I'd vote for ya

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3233932
Eliminate the unconstitutional graduated income tax.
Eliminate the Federal Reserve CORPORATION.
Eliminate Fractional Reserve banking.
Return the responsibility of regulation of the currency and the coining of money back to Congress - make them put their money where their flappy jaws are.
Re-institute the constitutionally provided for poll tax.
Mandate that Congress be subject to (and cannot be exempted from) the laws they pass.
Pass a balanced budget ammendment which allows for deficit spending in times of economic downturn, but which also requires that the money borrowed be the first budgetary priority in pay back when the treasury is flush.
I say this as a Liberal.
This conserative can agree with that.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3233932
Eliminate the unconstitutional graduated income tax.
Eliminate the Federal Reserve CORPORATION.
Eliminate Fractional Reserve banking.
Return the responsibility of regulation of the currency and the coining of money back to Congress - make them put their money where their flappy jaws are.
Re-institute the constitutionally provided for poll tax.
Mandate that Congress be subject to (and cannot be exempted from) the laws they pass.
Pass a balanced budget ammendment which allows for deficit spending in times of economic downturn, but which also requires that the money borrowed be the first budgetary priority in pay back when the treasury is flush.
I say this as a Liberal.
This is what I don't get, we want to put the responsibility for monetary policy in the hands of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid. A HUGE advantage to having a Central Bank is an insulation from the poor choices of a misinformed electorate...
At least this way the people making monetary policy aren't as much of a politician. (and I say this as someone who things the Federal Reserve Policy over the last 2 years has been horrible.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3233932
Eliminate the unconstitutional graduated income tax.
Eliminate the Federal Reserve CORPORATION.
Eliminate Fractional Reserve banking.
Return the responsibility of regulation of the currency and the coining of money back to Congress - make them put their money where their flappy jaws are.
Re-institute the constitutionally provided for poll tax.
Mandate that Congress be subject to (and cannot be exempted from) the laws they pass.
Pass a balanced budget ammendment which allows for deficit spending in times of economic downturn, but which also requires that the money borrowed be the first budgetary priority in pay back when the treasury is flush.
I say this as a Liberal.
You have my backing as well.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3234170
This is what I don't get, we want to put the responsibility for monetary policy in the hands of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid.
So did the founding fathers. Article I, Section VIII.
A HUGE advantage to having a Central Bank is an insulation from the poor choices of a misinformed electorate...
So is dictatorship. The great risk of democracy is that people can (and often choose to) be misinformed. It's a risk I can't see being ameliorated if one wants to remain a free people.
I have no issue with a central bank controlling monetary policy. What I take issue with is that every dollar in my pocket, every dollar in circulation, has been borrowed, WITH INTEREST, from a private corporation, both unaccountable to me and whose shareholders are unknown.
You can haz security (and that includes monetary security) or you can haz freedom. You can't haz both, and the first step toward taking your freedom is controlling your money.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3234371
So did the founding fathers. Article I, Section VIII. So is dictatorship. The great risk of democracy is that people can (and often choose to) be misinformed. It's a risk I can't see being ameliorated if one wants to remain a free people.
I have no issue with a central bank controlling monetary policy. What I take issue with is that every dollar in my pocket, every dollar in circulation, has been borrowed, WITH INTEREST, from a private corporation, both unaccountable to me and whose shareholders are unknown.
You can haz security (and that includes monetary security) or you can haz freedom. You can't haz both, and the first step toward taking your freedom is controlling your money.
The fed is just as private as fanny may and freddy mac. It isn't.
Can you imagine if monetary policy had to be voted on? Our USD would collapse. Actually maybe not, maybe that would be a great backdoor way to a more lasse-fair economy...

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3234383
The fed is just as private as fanny may and freddy mac. It isn't.
Then why are we paying interest on every dollar printed and whom are we paying it to?
Can you imagine if monetary policy had to be voted on? Our USD would collapse. Actually maybe not, maybe that would be a great backdoor way to a more lasse-fair economy...
That was the original plan.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3234408
Then why are we paying interest on every dollar printed and whom are we paying it to?
That was the original plan.

Well, we could actually back our currency with Gold or silver like we used to.
That might make them think before running off a few billion from the presses.

 

[uneverno]

Precisely my point.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3234457
Well, we could actually back our currency with Gold or silver like we used to.
That might make them think before running off a few billion from the presses.
The whole reason they came off of it was because it became too hard to peg. People were literally going to the bank, getting $$ of gold coins and melting them down, then turning around to sell them. They ended up having to pass a law banning owning silver and gold coinage, to try and curb the practice.
Between congress running our monetary policy and setting an artificial value on the USD. It would collapse our economy. You simply can't control something that big...
Think about it, every penny leveraged for the

[hr]
on your house, anything you have on a credit card, your car, it would all correct down. People literally wouldn't be able to buy anything on credit. That correction would take us back to the 20's or 30's.