It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Bold Plan Sweeps Away Reagan Ideas

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by jerico65
 


lol, your Dr. friend isn't Rich!! Well off perhaps. You don't even know what Rich is......


Well, Mr. whaaa, it sure has hell isn't $250k either...




posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by xstealth
 


Let's do keep this thread on topic.

Because I don't have a party. But I have seen how Reaganomics have changed this country for the worst.


Im curious as to if you saw what we had before "Reaganomics?" Obama is aching to be a Carter... Over 20 million jobs were created under Reagans 8 years in office, and he inherited an economy that was arguably in worse shape than the one Obama inherits today.


And I believe that this country requires very radical changes every so often, and now is that time.


There hasn't been a radical change in this country since the 1800's.


And bigger government is not a positive change in the right direction.

What G.W. Bush did to personal rights and freedoms, Obama is doing economically. The sad thing is, people like you, and whaaa, are going to have to learn things the hard way.


What makes you think that Gov can't create Jobs? You are right though, we have seen what Big Gov in the _wrong hands_ can do. It can limit the right to marry who you want, it can limit the right to live under the state laws you voted on because the fed gov doesn't care.


This is an oxymoron... As if there is such thing as "Big Gov in the right hands."



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
This basically gives an idea of how taxes and tax cuts work

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that,is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
Im curious as to if you saw what we had before "Reaganomics?" Obama is aching to be a Carter... Over 20 million jobs were created under Reagans 8 years in office, and he inherited an economy that was arguably in worse shape than the one Obama inherits today.


Your post is evidence of either a poor grasp of history, or clinging to right-wing falsehoods out of fear Obama may be right.

First off, the economy Reagan "inherited" was largely a direct result of running the entire Vietnam War on a credit card. The bills came due, at roughly the same time as our reliance on foreign oil first came back to bite us in the rear with OPEC's hissy-fit.

Carter was doing the best he could with what he had. Aside from that, he had an actual, viable plan for curbing this nation's addiction to oil and switching to renewable energy sources (had this plan been kept in place it's very possible almost half our current energy would be coming from renewable sources).

Reagan also had help. Remember, he was crafted specifically in a certain image so the mega-rich (talking folks who make the equivalent in today's dollars over $3 Million) would have a telegenic puppet to serve as the "Face" of their New World Order. Reagan was a draft-dodger in WWII and a contemporary of John Wayne (another Draft Dodger) with the same kind of false, "manly" charisma Wayne had, the kind that gets people to pay attention to him and not to what he's actually doing. He also had assistance from the Defense Department, CIA and the military/industrial complex who feared Carter would take away their corporate welfare while seeking peaceful solutions to the Cold War. You think the October Surprise was a coincidence? Think again. Carter was set up to fail by the Elite, using slick marketing campaigns designed in all the right-wing "think tanks" they set up in the '70's to fool the voting public into thinking exactly what most of you Libertarian fantasy-prone types think now: That letting the ultra-rich and the companies they run do whatever they want without consequence, oversight or any form of social responsibility will ultimately lead to a "good solution" for the majority of Americans.

Well where we are right now is exactly where the Elite want us to be: Drowning in debt, both personal and as a nation; distracted by conflict overseas and a dozen other piddly little things to prevent us from comparing notes and reaching our own consensus, so we're all battling amongst ourselves while they raid our piggy banks. Truth is, sadly for you who still cling to it, that the entire right-wing economic philosophy is a dismal failure for everyone except those in the highest tiers of society, who have enough money to last for a thousand lifetimes.

They want economic recessions and depressions.

The whole point is that there will be just two classes: the ultra-rich, and everyone else who will be too poor and too poorly educated to fully understand how poor they really are.

This leads to what they consider "social stability".

They saw what happened in the late 1960's: After decades of having a strong Middle Class, the youth of the time were smart enough and active enough that they began to pose a real threat to the traditional power-brokers. They started asking why the "traditional" way was the "best" way. They started asking why our society so blindly revolved around war and violence and, more importantly, who was profiting from it. They started asking why the richest nation on Earth couldn't work to promote true peace and world stability through understanding, diplomacy and friendly assistance without strings attached. And because they grew up in prosperous times, they had the free time and the extra energy to devote to activism.

They saw that with national prosperity for a majority of Americans comes the very real possibility of radical changes to their way of life.

And they set out to fool the "useful idiots" of America into buying into their "version" of American history and how economics shapes our destinies, effectively turning truth in a full 180 and convincing you that by letting your employer cut back on raises and effectively cut your wages for the long-term future, and replace your lost wages with credit so you could continue to consume, and destroying government programs and oversight that had worked perfectly well since the 1930's, and cut the taxes on the richest Americans so that instead of running their companies responsibly they could just "cut and run" with whatever profit they wanted, that somehow by doing all these things we could all be "more successful".

Couldn't be further from the truth.

Truth is, the Middle Class doesn't exist naturally. It must be created and nurtured, protected by strong legislation and solid enforcement. Without these things everyone except the rich will lose money and become poor. It's a fact you can take to the bank.



There hasn't been a radical change in this country since the 1800's.


Ummmm, New Deal anyone? Saved America from the Great Depression? Ended the predatory practices of the greedy venture capitalists who had gotten us into the Depression in the first place? Hm? Remember that? Created the Middle Class in this country?

Guess you forgot.


And bigger government is not a positive change in the right direction.


This statement represents such epic intellectual failure on your part it's almost laugh-out-loud funny.


What G.W. Bush did to personal rights and freedoms, Obama is doing economically.


*sigh*

Every time taxes on the rich are raised, the net effect is positive for the majority of Americans. Every time.


The sad thing is, people like you, and whaaa, are going to have to learn things the hard way.


Yes, it'll be hard to take being 100% correct.


This is an oxymoron... As if there is such thing as "Big Gov in the right hands."


Sure there is. It hauled us out of the Depression, won WWII and set us on a prosperous course. Had the Mega-Rich and the military/industrial complex not intervened for their own enrichment at the expense of the Commons, this discussion wouldn't even be taking place--you'd truly have the economic and personal freedom to do as you please, as long as you aren't hurting someone else.

But maybe that kind of true freedom scares you.

Maybe you like being in "survival mode" all the time.

Maybe it's some weird fantasy thing.

Maybe a kinder, gentler society, with low unemployment, good wages, easy access for all to health care and other vital services, etc. frightens the Hell out of you.

Maybe you should ask yourself why.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 


You are so on the money with all that you covered in your post.... I don't know if the folks that can't see the truth were not around in the 70s and 80s, stoned out of their minds or just gullible and need to buy into lies and deception..... Most of the people that I knew in the 80s were living on credit, unemployed, underemployed or working numerous part time jobs with no benefits and having to pay their own taxes as self employed contractors.... Two years after Reagan was in office,the cost of living nearly doubled, interest rates and real estate sky rocketed and small businesses folded ,left and right..... He killed the "Alternative Fuel Study"just a day or two after his inauguration, shutting down the market for sugar beets, which created foreclosures on farmers that were involved in the program. Corporations bought the farm land at auctions, and Willie Nelson started Farm Aid.... I can't believe that people want to continue down the path that the Republican Party has laid out for our future.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervigilant
 


You know what I was taught in my Government school (formerly known as public school) the late 70's? This was during the Carter Administration, mind you.
I was taught that a depression, or extreme recession was now impossible because of Credit cards. My teacher, who was fairly liberal, told us that because consumers could "buy on time", it would protect us from extreme economic mood swings. How did that turn out?



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

This seems like something you either like or you don't.

All I can say is that this is indeed the type of change I voted for.



[edit on 28-2-2009 by HunkaHunka]


Really? Wow, I've read so many of your posts and each one makes my head spin. I think you've drank too much tap water or had a government education.

Do you realize that the 'rich' employ over 75% of the work force? Don't you think that imposing higher taxes common peoples employers will just lead to more job loss?

I know it will, even the filthy dirty lowlife rich are hurting financially right now. The ones I know aren't living the high life they used to. The economic problems we have right now stem up and down. The lack of purchasing and business effects the people at the top. And when you tax the hell out of them, it will effect the bottom.

This is exactly the change we need to eclipse the great depression.

I am not a Republican, so don't point a finger at me and say, "well your a republican, so of course you disagree with everything Obaaammaaa does."



Ok so now people who aren't as rich but still own business's can employ more of those same people that the super rich can't. It will balance it self out and give more opportunities for smaller companies to become bigger companies. The super rich don't want this because it means more competitors for them. They will still make 20 million a year instead of 40 million it's not like they are hurting because of this but not the company that makes 500,000 can make 2 million and employ some of those workers laid off from the bigger comapny, all the while having less taxes on the midle class which leaves them with more money to spend on the economy and on thoes buisnesses.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Carter was doing the best he could with what he had.


Carter should have stuck to peanut farming. He was in over his head...


Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Sure there is. It hauled us out of the Depression,


I laughed at this part. Man, you can have your opinion, but you just made an ass out of yourself with it.

It now is commonly known that government intervention actually prolonged the Great Depression.

newsbusters.org...

www.amatecon.com...



won WWII and set us on a prosperous course.


WW2 really helped America end the GD, their aint anything quite like a war time economy...


Had the Mega-Rich and the military/industrial complex not intervened for their own enrichment at the expense of the Commons, this discussion wouldn't even be taking place--you'd truly have the economic and personal freedom to do as you please, as long as you aren't hurting someone else.


Yea, I guess we could be speaking Russian...living the easy life. And so long as we didnt speak our minds, or say anything negative about the big gov, everything would be peachy...Seriously, pull your head out of your ass...


Maybe you like being in "survival mode" all the time.


By survival mode, do you mean having motivation to succeed, and by doing so, I will guarantee myself a comfortable life, one that I can look back on with great pride of my successes, knowing all that I have accomplished made me that very person? Whats wrong with this?

Are you afraid to "survive." Are you that inept?


Maybe it's some weird fantasy thing.


I would call it false Utopian standards.


Maybe a kinder, gentler society, with low unemployment, good wages, easy access for all to health care and other vital services, etc. frightens the Hell out of you.


Sky rocketing debt, that my children, and their own children are expected to pay, scares the hell out of me... Class envy warfare scares the hell out of me. Turning America into a big giant failed socialist monarch, scares the hell out of me. Big Gov scares the hell out of me. Americas founding fathers must be turning over in their graves of what America has become, and what America will become!


Maybe you should ask yourself why.


Because as history has shown IT DOESNT WORK!!! It isnt working for Europe, it didn't work well for Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia, it isnt working for Peoples Republic of China or North Korea, etc...etc...etc...


Hell look at Cali, $43 billion in the hole, Higher taxes and extended government oversight are set to extinguish Silicon Valley. Who controls Cali, and has for a while? the DEMOCRATS!!! America will no longer be a leader, but rather a follower, Asia is set to take Americas place. Californians are flocking out of Cali in droves... California is a microcosm of things to come for America, all because you idiots elected a junior senator who cant tell his ass from a hole in a ground... Good Job dave man!




[edit on 1-3-2009 by Fox News]

[edit on 1-3-2009 by Fox News]

[edit on 1-3-2009 by Fox News]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by hypervigilant
I can't believe that people want to continue down the path that the Republican Party has laid out for our future.


I dont wish to continue down either path if at all possible. Its you morons who keep electing the same damn officials because of party loyalities...You are screwing up the country for those of us who do not affiliate with either corrupt partys, and its pissing me off.


I can't believe that people want to continue down the path that the Democrats, and Republican Parties have laid out for our future. Your all about F'kn nuts!!

[edit on 1-3-2009 by Fox News]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by spacedoubt
 


I remember a junior high school teacher in in the early 60s warning us about credit cards. I remember him saying that Sears Roebuck had been making more of their profit from credit cards than merchandise just 6 years after issuing them..... They were made of metal then and called "Charge Plates"..... He was a music teacher and also a liberal... I had a better credit rating when I was using credit cards and using them but I never carry a balance on a credit card account now and haven't in the last 7 years.... As far as monetary matters go it is very obvious to me that the GOP is far more liberal than the Democrats. The major difference is they are more concerned in implementing social programs for the country club members, and jet setters, than for the rest of the citizens that don't bring home enough money to utilize the loop holes and tax dodges afforded the people that can also afford lobbyist.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Fox News
 

I suppose that you write in a candidate when you vote, and have never had to choose from one of the two major party's candidates?... Either way you are voting for [SNIP] and hopefully you try to vote for the one that stinks less.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Ronald Reagan was loved by conservatives and still is today. But alot of these same people refuse to accept the detrimental effects reaganomics had on our country. All of the following were detrimental effects and/or scandals related to Reagan's economic approach:

-record budget deficits
-economic pressure on the middle class
-The HUD controversy
-Superfund grants involving the EPA
-The Savings and Loan scandal (also involving the original Keating Five)

From:
Reagan Administration Scandals - Wikipedia


Several other controversies also occurred in the Reagan administration; one involved Department of Housing and Urban Development secretary Samuel Pierce and his associates. Wealthy contributors to the administration's campaign were rewarded with funding for low income housing development without the customary background checks, and lobbyists, such as former Secretary of the Interior James G. Watt, were rewarded with huge lobbying fees for assisting campaign contributors with receiving government loans and guarantees. Sixteen convictions were eventually handed down, including several members of the Reagan administration.


One of the only reasons that Ronald Reagan's legacy is commonly seen as positive is because George Bush Senior put an end to the Reagan administration's Savings and Loan debacle.

But honestly.. When you consider that the Savings and loan scandal only cost taxpayers an estimated $160 billion, that pales incomparison to the criminalistic bailout policies of the Bush/Obama administrations. We're literally shelling out trillions of taxpayer dollars to the only people Washington sais we should fear.. The extremely wealthy (i.e.. Those who run our financial system in the first place).

-ChriS


[edit on 2-3-2009 by BlasteR]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 

You forgot to mention the Crop Rotation Program that pays out big bucks to rich farmers to only plant on one third of their property.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by West Coast
 


Well put.

It should be obvious to most that rather than being the NEW LINCOLN Obama is in fact the new Carter. Both charismatic young presidents coming in with loyal followers, both seen by those same followers as 'something unique and fresh' ,both seen as 'presidents for the common' folk, etc.

Its also obvious that rather than the current age being 'the exciting 1960's!' as drooled over by the children on here, its in fact very eerily similar to the late 1970's.

Obama , like Carter, will first been seen as a novelty, later to be seen as weak and ineffectual from a historical perspective.

The true sad part is there will be no Reagan to follow Jimmy this time.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
All I have to say is you can only tax the rich *so* much, geebus. The top 2% of income earners pay over 20% of all income tax. If I was that freaking rich I would move all my cash and assets to another country and not lose half my yearly income.

And taxing more on charitable donations? Please tell me that makes any sense whatsoever.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fox News
Carter should have stuck to peanut farming. He was in over his head...


True to some degree, in that he honestly expected the Government he was the Executive of to follow his policies and not stab him in the back at the behest of the Mega-Rich.



I laughed at this part. Man, you can have your opinion, but you just made an ass out of yourself with it.

It now is commonly known that government intervention actually prolonged the Great Depression.

newsbusters.org...

www.amatecon.com...


First, I'll try to ignore your blatant personal attack in violation of the T&C.

Second, the UCLA study is debunked Here.

The other link is run by some guy in Florida with no credentials.


WW2 really helped America end the GD, their aint anything quite like a war time economy...


WWII was effectively a massive public works project. To some degree, it did put the nail in the Depression's coffin, but had FDR not gotten the ball rolling in the first place we could never have fought WWII because we'd have had practically no manufacturing capability to produce war materiel, nor would we have had the ready cash to pay for it.


Yea, I guess we could be speaking Russian...living the easy life. And so long as we didnt speak our minds, or say anything negative about the big gov, everything would be peachy...Seriously, pull your head out of your ass...


Again with the personal attacks.

Sweeping away Reaganomics has nothing to do with freedom of personal expression. Typical right-wing deflection: I'm talking basic economics, you're talking tired rhetoric about Soviet-style communism. Stay on topic.


By survival mode, do you mean having motivation to succeed, and by doing so, I will guarantee myself a comfortable life, one that I can look back on with great pride of my successes, knowing all that I have accomplished made me that very person? Whats wrong with this?


Nothing. And if you're perfectly comfortable in your current position, that's fine and dandy.

But most Americans are not so fortunate.

I work for a recruiting firm. Our clients include telecoms, outsourcing companies, energy companies, even garbage-handling companies.

I take some 100-150 calls per day from people desperate for work. And not just the bottom of the employability barrel: I speak to former bankers, realtors, people with Master's degrees and long lists of accomplishments on their resumes. People who managed entire sales departments and have briefcases full of awards for being at the top of their professions, but have been "let go" because even though they're top performers the companies they work for just can't afford to keep them (or their bosses just want to keep that cash for themselves). And they're begging me to get them an interview for $9/hr jobs. Some of them have been laid off two, three, even four times in the last two to three years. Some have been out of work for almost a year or more because the few companies who are hiring want spotless resumes with no "gaps" in employment whatsoever, and/or at least 2 yrs work with each of their previous employers. And you know what? These people are smart, they're professional, they have good attitudes, they want to work hard.

But there's nowhere to go.

Nowhere that pays them the $40k+ salaries they used to earn. People who were the top performers at their companies a year ago are now hoping to get call center jobs just so they can hope to stay afloat.

THAT'S "Survival Mode". And the ranks of people in this situation is growing.


Are you afraid to "survive." Are you that inept?


More personal attacks. Nice. Got anything else?


I would call it false Utopian standards.


I would call it the standards set forth by our Founding Fathers. Read Thomas Jefferson and get back to me.


Sky rocketing debt, that my children, and their own children are expected to pay, scares the hell out of me...


Then start by telling your Congressman to bring back the usury laws holding credit card interest to a maximum of 10%.


Class envy warfare scares the hell out of me.


Then join us. It's the Mega-Rich who started this. They're the ones who declared war on the Middle Class. They're the ones who want to prevent real democracy from taking hold. They're the ones who want to put you and everyone else in this country in their place: under their hob-nailed jackboots.


Turning America into a big giant failed socialist monarch, scares the hell out of me.


It's been my experience that those who throw around the term "Socialist" have no idea what that actually means. I'm guessing you're the same.


Big Gov scares the hell out of me.


Why?


Americas founding fathers must be turning over in their graves of what America has become, and what America will become!


What America "has" become is a direct result of Republicans doing the bidding of the ultra-rich at the expense of the Commons. What it WILL become is what it should be: a true Land of Opportunity, where people are treated equally and fairly and have real opportunities for personal success rather than having to spend every waking moment toiling away for their basic subsistence.


Because as history has shown IT DOESNT WORK!!!


Prove it.


It isnt working for Europe,


Most Europeans I know, along with thousands of American expatriates fed up with our "everything has a price" mentality, would disagree with you.


it didn't work well for Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia,


Both of which are extreme examples and have nothing whatsoever to do with reigning in irresponsible businesses and putting the balance of power back in the hands of the People where it belongs. Both of these examples were mockeries of liberalism and socialism, using these terms as a smokescreen for the abuses of their totalitarian party leaders.

We can do better than that.


it isnt working for Peoples Republic of China or North Korea, etc...etc...etc...


Again, not really what they say it is.


Hell look at Cali, $43 billion in the hole,


Because the Federal Government under Bush abdicated its responsibility to pay for infrastructure and other needs, and because taxes were frozen at 1970s levels--this prevented the collection of needed revenues.


Higher taxes and extended government oversight are set to extinguish Silicon Valley.


Actually the lack of oversight caused this problem. Higher taxes are a necessity to pay for the things society needs in order to function.


Who controls Cali, and has for a while? the DEMOCRATS!!!


Ah, your failure is almost complete. Actually the reason for the budget crunch is because Republicans are holding the state hostage. They've allied themselves with Grover Norquist rather than upholding their oaths to serve the People of their State. California's Constitution requires the state budget to have a two-thirds majority in order to pass--they're the ones causing the problem.


America will no longer be a leader, but rather a follower, Asia is set to take Americas place.


Why does there even need to be a Leader? THAT'S your biggest problem, I think--you need one. The idea of an empowered populace scares you, doesn't it?






[edit on 3/2/2009 by The Nighthawk]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
All I have to say is you can only tax the rich *so* much, geebus. The top 2% of income earners pay over 20% of all income tax.


Untrue. Most of them have already sent their holdings overseas, as have most corporations. This is part of why there's such huge budget woes--things still need to be paid for, and what the People can't provide in tax revenue has to be borrowed.


If I was that freaking rich I would move all my cash and assets to another country and not lose half my yearly income.


And I would immediately declare you a Non-Citizen, with none of the privileges and protections that comes with citizenship.

You have a responsibility to Society. Everyone does. No person is economically 100% independent. In a functional Society everyone depends, to some degree, on everyone else. If you're a worker making a basic wage you depend on your employer for that wage. Your employer depends on the Market to provide business so they can keep you employed. Government depends on Taxes to provide the infrastructure that makes the Market capable of functioning, and in turn sets rules to govern the Market so that the People don't get screwed.

It's all a very careful balance, and if you remove something, such as Reagan's (and his immediate successors) removal of the rules governing the Market, the People will feel the heat.

Point is, like it or not, we're all in this together. You can either be part of the problem or part of the solution.

And frankly, why do you Righties care so much about the Rich anyway? They don't care about you. In fact, for the most part, they hate you and use you as pawns.

You're not that rich. Chances are, statistically, you will never be that rich, regardless of who runs the Government. It's time to get with the program and realize that you're just a tool for the power-brokers.

[edit on 3/2/2009 by The Nighthawk]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
The Nighthawk


True to some degree, in that he honestly expected the Government he was the Executive of to follow his policies and not stab him in the back at the behest of the Mega-Rich.


just the type of answer Id expect from a homer.


First, I'll try to ignore your blatant personal attack in violation of the T&C.


Ohhh...now he wants to play by the T&C rules..


the UCLA study is debunked Here.


Yes, because you are all economist here on ATS... This isnt some UFO photo. And quite honestly get over yourself...You must not be aware that this is a CONSPIRACY SITE... The second you lose the arrogant tone, then maybe we can have a big boy talk.


The other link is run by some guy in Florida with no credentials.

Id say his credentials are more plausible then your self righteous opinions..

Here are some more sources... Pretty much all historians believe FDRs policies prolonged the GD, had a world war not been going on, who knows how America would have made it out of the clearing.

While your at it, maybe you can debunk all these sources as well..

online.wsj.com...

www.economist.com...

www.economist.com...

www.theaustralian.news.com.au...

www.lewrockwell.com...

Is the economist wrong too? Have fun...


WWII was effectively a massive public works project. To some degree, it did put the nail in the Depression's coffin, but had FDR not gotten the ball rolling in the first place we could never have fought WWII because we'd have had practically no manufacturing capability to produce war materiel, nor would we have had the ready cash to pay for it.


WW2 came at a conveinent time, it was a matter of question of yes or no, if we were going to join the war or not. Once it was seen how much money could be made from the war, the answer became quite clear. Another great benefit was Americas standing in the world would drastically increase as a result of joining the war. The US knew damn well that Pax Americana would be achieved, as the US would be the only major world power to come out in relative good shape contrast to Europe.


Sweeping away Reaganomics has nothing to do with freedom of personal expression. Typical right-wing deflection: I'm talking basic economics, you're talking tired rhetoric about Soviet-style communism. Stay on topic.


Again with the ignorant generalizations. Im sure it would suit your argument if I were a right winger...but we should have already established that certainly is not the case. And economically, things were in fact WORSE under Carter, this is fact. Im not saying they were great under Reagan, though the numbers seem to elude to it, but we all should know how easily numbers can be manipulated. This includes both sides, which have been screwing the AMerican people over for the past SEVERAL decades.

Continued




[edit on 2-3-2009 by Fox News]

[edit on 2-3-2009 by Fox News]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Continued



Nothing. And if you're perfectly comfortable in your current position, that's fine and dandy.

But most Americans are not so fortunate.


Not all, but it seems to me, atleast from your view, which i am sure is widley accepted as very liberal, its better to punish those who can, versus those who cant. But what your doing, is squashing motivation to work hard. You are punishing our nations job growers. Im not saying times arnt rough, they clearly are, and I happen to think it is because of governmental interference (Look up Community Reinvestment Act, and how that really is a big reason why there was a housing bubble in the first place) in the past, and in the present.


(or their bosses just want to keep that cash for themselves).


This is the problem with your logic. You automatically asume everyone else is greedy, when this cannot be. And to be honest, whats wrong if they want to keep profit? Afterall, its THEIR BUISNESS! And Im reffering to small buisness owners (Those rich folk Obama keeps on talking about. Y'know, those $250kers, or is it 208k now?) more than i am CEOs and big corps.


Nowhere that pays them the $40k+ salaries they used to earn. People who were the top performers at their companies a year ago are now hoping to get call center jobs just so they can hope to stay afloat.


Ok, but rather then blame companies for having to lay people off, why tax them more? Are you aware what a higher capital gains tax will do to US jobs? Blame the government, this is bi-partisain. Obama is pro negative buisness growth. He wants to "spread" the wealth, but how well did that work for the soviets? How well is that working for the Chinese? Hell, theyre more capitalist than we are..THE FREAKING CHINESE!

I would argue small buisnesses are the main driving force for stability inside the US economy. Some 80% of the US economy is based on internal commerce, only 20% is exposed to the world outside. Its all because of Small buisnesses. And they are the ones who will feel these tax hikes, not the Big Corporations. The corporations will simply pass the tax onto the consumer.



THAT'S "Survival Mode". And the ranks of people in this situation is growing.


How is that my fault?


More personal attacks. Nice. Got anything else?


Not a personal attack, but a logical question you dodged. If you are willing to fork out money from your paycheck, fine and dandy. But dont come crawling to me to fork out mine.


I would call it the standards set forth by our Founding Fathers. Read Thomas Jefferson and get back to me.


Im aware, that every man is equal, but that is not the governments call, nor was it ever intended to be by our fouding fathers.


Then start by telling your Congressman to bring back the usury laws holding credit card interest to a maximum of 10%.


This does little to replace our taxation system, which is unconstitutional, and thus is a sham.


Then join us. It's the Mega-Rich who started this. They're the ones who declared war on the Middle Class. They're the ones who want to prevent real democracy from taking hold. They're the ones who want to put you and everyone else in this country in their place: under their hob-nailed jackboots.


I dont necessarily disagree with your assessment. I like reading some of Abe Lincolns quotes too. But people who make 250k are not the mega rich.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Continued


It's been my experience that those who throw around the term "Socialist" have no idea what that actually means. I'm guessing you're the same.


It depends on what you view as your term for socialism. Are we fully socialist yet? No, but I feel that is where things seem to be moving. This economic disaster has only sped up this process that seems quite inevitable.


Why?


As to why Big Gov scares me? Because, im an individual, and dont like being looked at as a statistic. Look back at the big governments of the past...how did it work for them? How bout them soviets? Nazi Germany? You get the point...


What America "has" become is a direct result of Republicans doing the bidding of the ultra-rich at the expense of the Commons. What it WILL become is what it should be: a true Land of Opportunity, where people are treated equally and fairly and have real opportunities for personal success rather than having to spend every waking moment toiling away for their basic subsistence.


That is pure conjecture on your part. I would say that the US is still the most sought after destination in the world. Look at your boy Barry...Now tell me the American dream isnt alive, or never existed... Ever seen the movie Pursuit of Happiness? The American dream is very much so alive.

Only In america, can you go from a poor colored boy, to president of the United States. If you are going to blame everything on the republicans, should you not then also blame the successes that Obama as recently had, also on those same mean republicans? I think you are very hypocritical.


Prove it.


The Soviet Union, The imperialist Japanese, Nazi Germany, Todays peoples Republic of China, North Korea...basically it hasnt worked EVER! So you show me a time that it has worked and I will concede to you.


Most Europeans I know, along with thousands of American expatriates fed up with our "everything has a price" mentality, would disagree with you.


Europe is becoming less and less important by the day. What do you think the EU is? Say what you wish about the republicans, most of em are scum, but atleast they kept America the undisputed world leader for the past 30 odd years. This also causes jealousy throughout Europe.


Both of which are extreme examples and have nothing whatsoever to do with reigning in irresponsible businesses and putting the balance of power back in the hands of the People where it belongs.


But examples none the less. The problem with big government is, how do you control it? When and where does the growth just stop? Im not saying we could become like soviet Russia, but to ignore history is to repeat it. I think you are incrediably naive to suggest otherwise, to simply think this cannot, or will not happen to the US is...well...stupid..



Because the Federal Government under Bush abdicated its responsibility to pay for infrastructure and other needs, and because taxes were frozen at 1970s levels--this prevented the collection of needed revenues.


Are you serious? You are aware that because of bushes tax cuts, more revenue was generated, and as a result, tax revenue increased dramatically!



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join