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.

 

Sarah Palin, Keynesian Economics, Suppy-Side Economics and Ronald Reagan

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


What book?

So if it was carter who deregulated and not reagan, then why do Democrats/liberals always scream about how Republicans deregulate everything when they should be regulating everything??????
edit on 28-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


It was Bwaney Frank who "deregulated" the mortgage industry by letting the Foxes run the chicken coops.Carter and Clinton led the way on "regulating" businesses and forcing banks to give loans. Some people just really know how to twist everything around.
edit on 28-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





Reinvest or not, it's their money to do with what they want. Regardless.


It's their money? When the government is giving them tax cuts, it's increasing the tax burden on the majority of Americans! Who's going to make up for that missing tax revenue? It's coming out of the majority of taxpayers pockets. Rob the poor to feed the rich.




And we are losing manufacturing jobs because of government intervention in the form of tax laws, environmental laws, and entitlement programs to workers that have left the builders no other choice.


Last time I heard, the reason we're in the worst recession since the depressions was a lack of government intervention in the form of regulations. Like I said before, having no regulations on businesses is like having a kid manage a candy store. That's exactly what happened in the housing loan market, Enron, and the savings and loan scandals.

Tax laws? The majority of corporations don't even pay corporate income tax. They find loopholes to avoid paying taxes for years! We've had business programs in my area where the city offers new companies to set-up business and they are free from paying taxes for 10 years. You know what these greedy self serving industries do? They pack up and leave after their 10 year stint. Leaving a heap of unemployed workers in their wake!

Environmental Laws? Maybe you would like the same thing to happen in the U.S. like it did in Japan? Lets have industry rape all our natural resources, ignore safety standards and have them police themselves. In the mean time, they can pollute our waters, and secretly dump waste while slowly killing the population. How can you even trust them when they've have been caught causing so many environmental disasters? Many will gladly avoid safety standards and find loopholes that avoid implementing equipment that would benefit the environment. (It's called trading environmental credits]

Entitlement programs? Are you talking about union wages that give people a fair and livable wage? The only people who complain about unions are businesses who enjoy paying their workers a cheap wage and people who wish they can make the same livable wage their own selfish employers don't provide. Maybe people in this country should earn just enough to get by while corporations give "multi-million entitlements" to their CEO's and management. These corporations would go nowhere without the hard work, skill and sweat of its workers! Don't make me laugh, how can you even compare workers entitlements to management entitlements? It's been documented that these same companies who are failing are still giving out million dollar bonuses, and ridiculous pension plans.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


Peon, wealthy people go into a higher tax bracket. That is what is called a "Progressive income tax", and it is a specific tool of communism, as recorded in Congress.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
So, what was up with that 'share the wealth' statement from Palin based on her redistribution of oil company profits?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
So, what was up with that 'share the wealth' statement from Palin based on her redistribution of oil company profits?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


She seems to be of the mind that the people of Alaska own the resources. As I understand it. Actually, it looks like it was already set up that way since 1976. But she did add an additional windfall. She had a profit-sharing plan.
online.wsj.com...
edit on 28-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
So, what was up with that 'share the wealth' statement from Palin based on her redistribution of oil company profits?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


She seems to be of the mind that the people of Alaska own the resources. As I understand it.


That sounds pretty socialisticy to me. I thought the oil companies owned that oil? They are the ones who create jobs!



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
So, what was up with that 'share the wealth' statement from Palin based on her redistribution of oil company profits?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


She seems to be of the mind that the people of Alaska own the resources. As I understand it.


That sounds pretty socialisticy to me. I thought the oil companies owned that oil? They are the ones who create jobs!


Well, as I just said, it looks like Alaska was set up since 1976 to share the profits, something Sarah had nothing to do with. Her plan did involve changing the tax structure a bit.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Look, you can make all the apologies for your messiah, but she said 'share the wealth' which is a socialist ideology and therefore she is a socialist.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Look, you can make all the apologies for your messiah, but she said 'share the wealth' which is a socialist ideology and therefore she is a socialist.


Messiah? No, that's for supporters of Obama who think he is going to solve all the problems of the world and pay their mortgage and put gas in their tanks(oops gas prices are higher than ever....)

Look, Sarah hasn't even declared she's running.

Alaskia has no state income, property, or sales tax I would think you liberals would lover her. taxing the oil, sharing the profit, and no property tax. Maybe it didn't increase the size of govt though, so maybe that's why libs didin't like her program.
edit on 29-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
What did Reagonomics do besides destroy all future chances of a free-market, increase taxes and increase government spending? The article you link to is a lie, Stephen Moore is a lie.



Wow, all those references and footnotes in the article and all you can come up with is, "IT'S ALL A LIE!!!!"? Tell ya what, let's get specific, find me one quoted statistic in the article that you believe is a lie. It shouldn't be hard if the whole thing is a lie right?



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Look, you can make all the apologies for your messiah, but she said 'share the wealth' which is a socialist ideology and therefore she is a socialist.


Yah Obama is sharing the wealth with his cronies on Wall Street and with foreign national Oil companies. He's real American.

Looks like she made BP Oil mad. Maybe that's why they went with Obama
www.bloomberg.com...

``This massive tax increase will weaken investment in Alaska's oilfields at the very time that more investment is needed,'' Doug Suttles, president of BP Exploration Alaska Inc., said in a Dec. 27 e-mailed statement. ``We will now review all our planned activities.''


Obama gets 85 mil out of his BP Oil deal.

Surely, it was none of those Alaskans who received checks from Sarah were the ones who filed petty lawsuits against her.
Her successor is butting oil taxes. What would make you liberals happy?
www.adn.com...
Again, Sarah was going by the State Constitution. I'm guessing she did not change it. But I am concerned now as she seems to have made a statement supporting capping of carbon emissions. Maybe that's why McCain tapped her.


edit on 29-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Again, I fully get your point. But again I come around to the point that right now, it is about looking at where the wealth is being distributed. We aren't talking about it being distributed to people who make $250,000 a year. We are talking about it being distributed to military contractors of different sorts, many of whom have no anchor in america. The Bush/Obama Keynesian policy is a bastardized version of both trickle down and true Keynesian theory. I believe Palin would follow the same path under a different name.


But there has been no evidence that Palin would follow through with the same Bush/Obama policy. There is mass speculation, fueled by the biased media in its portrayal of Palin.

Just no proof.

While I've provided at least evidence that she would follow a Reagan-isque approach that would have the government have a hands off policy towards commerce.


A hands off approach is what got us onto this problem that we have. If the government regulated them better we wouldn't have this mess.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by beezzer
 


No, they can spend it any way they want to. The problem I have is when they're given tax cuts under the expectations that they're reinvesting it into the economy! If that was the case we wouldn't be losing manufacturing jobs in this country!



Reinvest or not, it's their money to do with what they want. Regardless. And we are losing manufacturing jobs because of government intervention in the form of tax laws, environmental laws, and entitlement programs to workers that have left the builders no other choice.


You do know that labor is cheaper over seas. entitlement programs and the environmental laws are not the only reasons ect..

Manufacturing is actually coming back now that the Dollar is cheaper.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


You can call it scialism but it's more like shareholders of a company receiving dividends from a stock that they own



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by gorgi
 


Evidence?
US is ranked #2 (behind Japan) for having the highest corporate tax rate
alhambrainvestments.com...



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Here are some of her positions on issues

www.ontheissues.org...



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by gorgi
 


Evidence?
US is ranked #2 (behind Japan) for having the highest corporate tax rate
alhambrainvestments.com...


This article is a little dated but it shows countries with the highest and lowest tax rates.Link

Here is an article about manufacturing jobs returning back to the US.

The tax rate is high on the corporate tax but there are many ways around paying taxes. ie GE.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


lmao...wait let me think about this....nah id rather not have a moron in the oval office

oh we already have one maybe more to come...the country is goin to hell in a hand basket so i say who cares let sarah palin be president might as well make me president i could stable the economy and conquer the world at the same time lol
edit on 29-5-2011 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

But corporations live and die by policy set by those in DC.


Go look at who are appointed in these positions and who they formerly worked for before their appointment.

Goldman Sachs is far from the only corporation that has "graduates" in DC.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   
I refuse to vote for either of them. Neither of them represents me as a citizen in my opinion, and I disagree with both of them on a broad range of issues. One has failed to keep promises made, and the other abandoned public office to be a celebrity.

There is not a candidate I feel comfortable voting for from any party or ideology at the moment, frankly. I know people frown on that, but that is my right and I don't based my decisions on what people frown on.

Just my two cents. Peace.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join