It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by newcovenant
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by NavyDoc
Bill Moyers is the guy interviewing the authors, a couple of economists. Both of them know a darn sight more than you and Ben Stein another economist agrees with them. You have no skills or knowledge in this area and not only shouldn't you be making suggestions or giving advice you shouldn't be pretending like you have any answers.
You have no answers, no knowledge of what has been done in the past or how we reached this sad state of affairs in the first place. This makes your worth and opinion here in this discussion fairly negligible.
LOL. YOu are clueless and are woefully ignorant of history and economics and just repeat the same Alinsky tactics over and over and over again. Not only are you ignorant, you are intellectually dishonest and continue to obfiscate and divert. I have given you many answers, data points, references. You just blow them off because they do not support your preconceived Marxist worldview.
I own a business, a side business, and manage several charitable organizations at this point. I know a #-ton more about economics than your sheep-hearding socialist self.
You may know how to cut a business down to the lowest common denominator and get blood out of a stone or a worker - I'll give you that but if fighting for basic human rights and RELIEF FROM the burden of taxes placed on that workers income, makes me a socialist, great. Particularly tax burdens that are NOT placed on his bosses "income" - thanks to the fact the boss is in a HIGHER "income" bracket. You clearly have not investigated the links I provided or you would not bother to hawk this ridiculous FOX NEWS agenda.
If exposing an Oligarchy you cannot see through the BS FOX News shovels on you - not my problem.
If fighting for EQUALITY in a system that is grossly unbalanced to favor the richest 1% of 1% makes me a socialist - I am proud to be one.edit on 10-11-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)
PPACA is aimed primarily at decreasing the number of uninsured Americans and reducing the overall costs of health care. It provides a number of mechanisms—including mandates, subsidies, and tax credits—to employers and individuals in order to increase the coverage rate.
Additional reforms are aimed at improving healthcare outcomes and streamlining the delivery of health care. PPACA requires insurance companies to cover all applicants and offer the same rates regardless of pre-existing conditions or gender.
The Congressional Budget Office projected that PPACA will lower both future deficits and Medicare spending.
On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of PPACA in the case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.
You feel they are being eroded and eventually will be taken entirely away from you? That is not happening unless you are doing something wrong. I still have my rights - except if I want to build a bomb or fly a plane into a building or kill people in a theatre... ....the NDAA? Are you planning a government overthrow? Are you someone who should be worried about getting caught?
Bull#. Your version of equality is to make everyone equally miserable. You like taking from some people to give to another just for your version of "equality." Makes you feel good and you don't have to sacrifice yourself.
Reagan's tax policies did redistribute the tax burden significantly...
By cutting income taxes, which are paid at a higher rate by the wealthy,
while increasing payroll taxes,
which are paid at a higher rate by the working poor and middle class,
Reagan shifted the tax burden down the income scale.
(You should be able to tally net effect on the coffers over time)
During the 1980s, the total effective federal taxation rate for
the poorest one-fifth of American families increased by more than 16%.
By contrast, the effective taxation rate for the wealthiest one-fifth of families
fell by 5.5%
and the richest one percent of Americans saved even more:
their tax rate fell by 14.4%.
During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the wealthiest one-fifth of American households (those who naturally owned the most stock) saw their incomes increase by 14%.
Meanwhile, the poorest one-fifth (who presumably owned no stock) endured an income decline of 24%,
TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT? We should have had him criminally charged. And that was in the 80's. I wonder what that 2.7 TRILLION would amount to today?
Yet the national debt TRIPLED under Reagan's watch, reaching a staggering $2.7 trillion by the time he left office.
The national unemployment rate exceeded 10% throughout 1982, rendering more Americans jobless than at any time since the Great Depression.
And I'm willing to bet 16 trillion dollars that if there was a Republican in office you wouldn't feel this way about the NDAA at all!
Well, I'll take that bet. It is what it is, and it wasn't "invented" by the Democrats or Obama.
It became necessary when terrorism went global. With security comes some compromise to freedoms. Look it up.
And, I'll raise you civility and respect, while politely ignoring your trollish childishness.
(You have an extra $16 trillion? Well, Blow me down, You are the ONE! The ONE who can single-handedly fix this mess that the Government has created!!!! Where the hell have you been???!!)
What does that even mean?
Some Americans feel threatened by the Patriot Act.
Their vigilance against unwarranted government intrusion into private behavior is important, for a United States without personal liberty is not a United States as we have ever known it.
Some things are simply too important to compromise, even to improve our own safety.
However, the Patriot Act does not represent an opportunity for intrusion into the private lives of most Americans, because the traditional requirements of judicially-approved warrants still apply. Instead, it is a means through which the American government can be proactive rather than reactive in the war against terror, helping to prevent attacks before they occur rather than only acting vigorously after Americans have been killed.
Read more: Family Security Matters www.familysecuritymatters.org...
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
and another thing,
Make up my mind, which is it?
Either conservatives are inbred mouth breathing toothless hillbilly rednecks or they,
"live in McMansions".
Which is it?
People need to be fed and sheltered. They don't need 100-foot yachts.
They need to be educated, not enslaved.
They need the resources to farm and develop cottage industries, and the training to do so.
Clean water, basic medicines, and freedom from fear for survival.
You don't want to admit that a 2000 year old religion is now outdated?
You don't want to be "forced" to help (when that is what you should be doing if you can)....? (That was supposed to be handled by your parents before you reached age 5! It's called "sharing") ...
Have your values and ALSO share your hoard. You can't have it both ways, being a "good Christian" and ALSO a rich vulture
Originally posted by Hefficide
If you're right? Well then it will all fall to pieces and the conservatives will be there, at the ready, with their guns and their wish to take it all back to 200 years ago - and with an opportunity to do it.
Originally posted by luciddream
I don't think the people who you direct it going to understand with flames coming out of their ears. They don't need reason to hate.
Lets see if we can find out where that kind of feeling comes from. This thread is actually one of the most polite threads going on this subject.. but lets take a look at this thread. BTW - this may sting a bit...
You make an excellent point. I'd like to know, too, where the "liberals" and "progressives" became seen as communist anti-Americans.
States with the least religious residents are also the stingiest about giving money to charity, a new study on the generosity of Americans suggests.
The study, released Monday by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, found that residents in states where religious participation is higher than the rest of the nation, particularly in the South, gave the greatest percentage of their discretionary income to charity.
The Northeast, with lower religious participation, was the least generous to charities, with the six New England states filling the last six slots among the 50 states. Churches are among the organizations counted as charities by the study, and some states in the Northeast rank in the top 10 when religious giving is not counted.
President Bush Helped Americans Through Tax Relief
President Bush Trusted Americans With Their Hard-Earned Money, Providing $1.7 Trillion In Relief Through 2008
President Bush demonstrated that letting people keep more of their own money leads to economic growth. In 2001, America was experiencing the unprecedented triple shock of a recession following the dot-com bust, economic disruption due to the terrorist attacks of September 11, and corporate accounting scandals. Fortunately, the country was able to overcome these challenges, in part because President Bush's tax relief put more money in families' pockets and encouraged businesses to grow and invest. Following the President's 2003 tax relief, the United States had 52 months of uninterrupted job growth, the longest run on record.
President Bush Signed The Largest Tax Relief In A Generation
President Bush's tax cuts provided $1.7 trillion in relief through 2008. President Bush worked with Congress to reduce the tax burden on American families and small businesses to spur savings, investment, and job creation.
In 2001, President Bush proposed and signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. This legislation:
•Reduced tax rates for every American who pays income taxes, including creating a new 10 percent tax bracket
•Doubled the child tax credit to $1,000 by 2010
•Reduced the marriage penalty beginning in 2005
•Put the death tax on the road to extinction
•Increased education tax benefits
•Increased limits on IRA and 401(k) contributions and changed limits on defined benefit pension plans – which were made permanent in the Pension Protection Act of 2006
In 2003, President Bush proposed and signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. This legislation:
•Reduced the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains to 15 percent
•Accelerated income tax rate reductions
•Accelerated the expansion of the 10 percent bracket
•Accelerated the increase of the child credit to $1,000
•Accelerated the reduction in the marriage penalty
•Quadrupled small business expensing from $25,000 to $100,000
•Increased bonus depreciation for businesses to 50 percent through 2004
President Bush's Tax Relief Allowed Americans To Keep Trillions Of Dollars Of Their Own Money
Results of the President's tax relief were swift. The economy returned to growth in the fourth quarter of 2001 and continued to grow for 24 consecutive quarters. The economy grew at a rapid pace of 7.5 percent above inflation during the third quarter of 2003 – the highest since 1984. The President's tax relief reduced the marginal effective tax rate on new investment, which encourages additional investment and, in the long-term, higher wages for workers.
•In 2007, a family of four earning $40,000 saved an average of $2,053 thanks to the President's tax relief.
The President's tax relief was followed by increases in tax revenue. From 2005 to 2007, tax revenues grew faster than the economy. The ratio of receipts to GDP rose to 18.8 percent in 2007, above the 40-year average. Between 2004 and 2006, capital gains realizations grew by approximately 60 percent. Growth in corporate income tax receipts was especially strong in the President's second term, nearly doubling between 2004 and 2007 and contributing a full percentage point to the increase in the total federal receipts-to-GDP share.
The President's tax relief has shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher-income taxpayers. With nearly all of the tax relief provisions fully in effect, the President's tax relief reduced the share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers from 3.9 percent in 2000 to 3.1 percent in 2005, the latest year of available data, while increasing the share paid by the top 10 percent from 46.0 to 46.4 percent.
President Bush Led The Response To The Financial Crisis Of 2008
This unprecedented economic growth was ended by the turbulence in the housing and credit markets, to which the President responded with bold action. President Bushaddressed the weakness in the economy early in 2008 by leading the bipartisan passage of an economic growth package that boosted consumer spending and encouraged businesses to expand, returning more than $96 billion to Americans. When the financial crisis intensified, President Bush led the passage and implementation of a rescue plan that helped address the root of the financial crisis, protected the deposits of individuals and small businesses, and helped enable credit to remain available to individuals and families. Moreover, he convened a summit with the leaders of the G-20 nations to discuss efforts to strengthen economic growth, deal with the financial crisis [/text]
I think if you believe that all Rep. fit the definition that your post implies, maybe you really do need to click the link to the definition of prejudice that I posted.
I think one of the differences is on beliefs about how well the government does things, or how efficient they are at doing it.