That's a quote by Hermann Göring from captain Gilbert's Nurenberg Diaries. Are you comparing the politics of the US today with those of nazi Germany during the late 1930's?Quote:
Originally Posted by RAKIdaRHINO
Printable View
That's a quote by Hermann Göring from captain Gilbert's Nurenberg Diaries. Are you comparing the politics of the US today with those of nazi Germany during the late 1930's?Quote:
Originally Posted by RAKIdaRHINO
"As i see it your current scarepolitics is a larger threat to your democracy and freedom than terrorism ever was. Im glad im not American."
scare politics is a byproduct of the theory, that politicians try to use to their advantage.
the theory is that racial profiling is the only way to catch more terrorists. it might not work, and it might cost more than it's worth. the sad part is that we have no other way of catching and stopping terrorism. as you have said, a terrorist can be anyone at any time.
i guess we should just walk around with gas masks and bullet proof vests?
Göring was commenting on how a democratic country can be dragged into a war by the will of the leader(s), you don't think that it would be possible to use that definition to describe what GWB did?Quote:
That's a quote by Hermann Göring from captain Gilbert's Nurenberg Diaries. Are you comparing the politics of the US today with those of nazi Germany during the late 1930's?
and then you get hit by a car and dieQuote:
Originally Posted by METALLICA
Killed in car accidents 42,116*
Killed by the common flu 20,000*
Killed by murders 15,517*
*Average annual totals in United States.
http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html
Of the 5.8 million people who died of injuries in 1998, 1,170,694 died as a direct result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.
http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/stat...statistics.htm
between 1995 and 2000 a total of 1671 ppl died around the world as a result of terrorism. Only a small portion of these were carried out by muslims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern...obal_Terrorism
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/
If you're that scared I'd suggest you'd build a padded nuclear shelter somewhere in northern Alaska and live there, the world is not a place for you.
neder
i know very well where the quote is from.. and no, i wasnt comparing nazi germany to america. and hate is too strong of a word because the people in these regions dont hate each other.. not in general. Visit them and youll see for yourself.
any way as for the quote i think its quite representative of what has happened in America since 9/11.. Sad but true.. it has nothing to do with nazism or nazi germany at all, but that doesnt change that its just as true today.. just like Göring himself said, it doesnt matter if its a facist, communist or democratic state. Its equally true for all, even America.
metallica
Gasmasks and bulletproof vests or the state constantly watching over your every step. Whats the difference really? Your freedom is still lost and youre still living trapped in a world of fear.Quote:
i guess we should just walk around with gas masks and bullet proof vests?
And like neder said, there are tons of things that are a much larger threat to you than terrorism, whatever the state might want you to believe. Open your eyes amigo. 'Terrorism' is just another tool to control the people, believe it or not.
And yeah, to carry on the numbergame.. on 9/11 roughly 25000 people died from starvation, the vast majority of them children. By now we are probably not far from one death per two seconds. Think about it for while. And then think about how many people that die from starvation each time you login to utopia. Scary thought? Well, its the world we live in. Now add to those numbers the huge amount of people that die from preventable diseases. Well, were probably up to one every second. Im not saying we can help everyone, but we have to put things into perspective.
1.4 billion people live on less than $1.25 per day. Now take in the cost of the War on Terror. Actually finding a number for it is hard, because no one really seems to know how much ill cost, but lets use congress own numbers and go with 1 trillion dollars (a low figure, to be quite honest). Is it that hard to think that the money couldve been more effectively spent elsewhere? That these huge amounts of money wouldve lessened the threat against both America and humanity more if they had been invested in to building up these poor nations once and for all taking them out of their misery?
Sure, you have no obligation to do so, nor am i saying that you should. But at least take care of your own people first. Over 50000 people in detroit is disconnected from the water system. Geez.
If you want to deal with terrorism deal with poverty. Its well known by know that poverty, starvation and lack of water play a large role in conflicts around the world. Your enemies would have a hard time selling you as the devil if you did that much good in the world. Right now youre just fueling their flame.
RAKIdaRHINO,
there is nothing wrong about what you just said, but the fact is, even though we have bigger problems than terrorism, we still don't have a solution for it. i think the fact that we have a problem that we don't know how to fix is what makes us waste so much on trying to fix it the only ways we can think of. maybe we're making the problem worse, but does it matter? in the end, the u.s. is going to be brought back down to the level of the rest of the world.
kingdoms rise and kingdoms fall, there is nothing new under the sun
The quote is from when they're discussing the richstag fire and Herman Göring suggests that in order to start a war countries stage violent acts or similar to get the people behind them. The quote would be accurate if the americans would have planned and carried out the attacks on 9/11 by themselves. Some do belive the did, but let's not get into that.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFKain
You're right, people in these regions don't hate eachother. They hate the americans and the brittish. And not all people hate them (some just dislike them), but those who becomme terrorists do. The question is why they hate them, do they have grounds for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by RAKIdaRHINO
I've lived in Saudi Arabia so I know very well what people are like in this particular area of the world. They're hospitable, honest and polite imshallah.
My sister lost her wallet in the Souk in Riyadh when she noticed we considered it to be gone and we started walking back to the car to go home and cancel cards etc. When we're walking by a shop a man comes running out shouting after us, in his hand is the wallet. He had found it on the street outside his shop and noticed a picture of a westerner inside. Since we were the only westerners to have passed in a while he recoginzed us when we came back and came running after us to return it. Everything was still in the wallet and he refused a finders fee. What western city could this happen in?
On another occation we had to service our car so we went to a shop and he had a look at it. He said he didn't have time right then, but if we came back the next day he would have it fixed ... imshallah. My dad then asked what it would cost and the man said 500 riyals ... imshallah. So, the next day we go to pick up the car only to be told that it's not done. The car was still standing in the exact same spot as we had left it and when we asked when it would be done he answered tomorrow ... imshallah. The next day the same thing happened and after that we just called him to see if the car was ready. It took 2 weeks and he charged 2500 riyals and I personally don't think he even touched the car, but it's not like we could argue about it. He would be right, he never promised anything, he left it in the hands of god and this is a permittable excuse in Saudi Arabia.
On a third occation (this was after the american invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the attitude towards westerners had changed drastically) we were out driving in the Desert when all of a sudden someone fired a shot close to our car. We turned around figuring we weren't welcome and set up camp for the night a couple of miles away. Later on 4 people come riding towards our camp on dromedars, all 4 have rifles and we assumed they are the ones who shot at us. 3 of them stay behind and the 4th rides up to us. When he gets close he askes us if we're americans, we answer him "no, we're swedish". After he said this he called to the others telling them that we're not americans but swedish. His face changed completely and broke out in a big smile. After this they let my sisters ride on their camels and they let us fire their rifles, we had a really good time with them. However, I still wonder what would have happened if we would have been americans and said so.
The number I have heard is 3 trillion, but that's beside the point. What did this money go to? Where and on who was it spent? A substantual amount of the money has gone to paying salaries of soldiers in Iraq, a lot have gone to buying bombs, missiles etc most of it produced in the US, some of it have gone to american coorporations such as Halliburton to help rebuild Iraq after the war. Almost all the money have gone back to the US. This war is providing jobs for millions of americans, how much would it have cost the US not to go to war? Can the US sustain their economy without a war? You say 1.4B people live on $1.25 per day or less, but you can't live on this amount in america (actually, you probarbly can, but I wouldn't try it).Quote:
Originally Posted by AFKain
How many people would be disconnected from the watersystem in the US if they were not in a war against terror?
Göring: "Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That isQuote:
The quote is from when they're discussing the richstag fire and Herman Göring suggests that in order to start a war countries stage violent acts or similar to get the people behind them. The quote would be accurate if the americans would have planned and carried out the attacks on 9/11 by themselves. Some do belive the did, but let's not get into that.
understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or
a parliament, or a communist dictatorship."
Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some
say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the
United States only Congress can declare wars."
Göring: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in
any country."
So in the second paragraph, which is what we're talking about (or at least I am), Göring says that a democratic country can be brought into a war using a method of portraying someone as an enemy that is attacking the democratic country. Exactly what GWB did with Sadam. And you might want to have another look at how you quote in that last post.
yeah, sorry. I missunderstood your intended meaning.
metallica
you dont really have a solution for terrorism either it seems. And quite frankly, if you dont have a solution you get one. Its about priorities, nothing more.Quote:
there is nothing wrong about what you just said, but the fact is, even though we have bigger problems than terrorism, we still don't have a solution for it.
neder
the quote seems very accurate as is, its quite open for interpretation.
quite honesltly the majority of these people dont really give a **** about brits or americans, they have other concerns in life. Of course the invasion of iraq and afghanistan with all its mistakes will get you some negative attention, but that has very little to do with the general situation. I think you should watch the news less and get some less biased information about the attitutudes of prople in the middle east (and the rest of the world)Quote:
You're right, people in these regions don't hate eachother. They hate the americans and the brittish.
Well, id like to think most of them. Europe hasnt gone that bad at least. Yes, cultures and attitudes are slightly different, but in the end most people around the world are loving caring respectful individuals that like doing the right thing.Quote:
Everything was still in the wallet and he refused a finders fee. What western city could this happen in?
I think alot of people in the west can speak of stories just like it. As the one above its hardly something distinct to these regions imo.Quote:
He would be right, he never promised anything, he left it in the hands of god and this is a permittable excuse in Saudi Arabia.
and investing the same money on American soil wouldnt have achieved more for the country? Either way you look on it its money spent on a war that couldve been spent elsewhere.Quote:
Almost all the money have gone back to the US
Obviously, but thats beyond the point. My argument was that if even a third of the money would be spent towards actually stabilizing the world (by giving more people access to water etc.) youd end up with better results for less money. And you know what? This money too could be paid to american workers, companies and the likes. Its not so much the money invested in the war thats the problem, its what the money couldve been invested for otherwise - nationionally and/or internationally.Quote:
You say 1.4B people live on $1.25 per day or less, but you can't live on this amount in america
Well, the current politics in many regions seem to favor the situation since its a step towards privatiziation. So its hard to really answer that question. If less money were dumped in to the war there would obviously be enough money to ensure that people could afford running water though, but if its not the goal it matters little. In the end its all politics.Quote:
How many people would be disconnected from the watersystem in the US if they were not in a war against terror?
(And AFKain its hardly only relevant regarding Saddam.)
what planet did you say you're from RAKIdaRHINO?
Democracy is not for the people.
im from mars. marsian rhinos ftw. dont tell anyone though.
"you dont really have a solution for terrorism either it seems. And quite frankly, if you dont have a solution you get one. Its about priorities, nothing more."
what is going to undo a religious extremist interpretation and perception of the rest of the world?
a psychologist? got any better ideas?
I do. Quit pissing the rest of the world off with our smug superiority complex.Quote:
you dont really have a solution for terrorism either it seems.
"Quit pissing the rest of the world off with our smug superiority complex."
everyone has a superiority complex, its human nature
it known more commonly as loyalty
METALLICA
yes, i already gave you quite a few better ideas.. reducing starvation, lack of water and poverty is one good step towards a more peaceful world, believe it or not. Fight injustice and conflict, dont create it.
and tbh i dont have a superiority complex, and im quite human. human nature is a weak excuse for all the aspects of ourselves we dont like..
WHAT? better go look up the definition for the word loyalty....Quote:
everyone has a superiority complex, its human nature
it known more commonly as loyalty
"human nature is a weak excuse for all the aspects of ourselves we dont like.."
it could be used as an excuse. on the other hand, i do not think that all problems can be solved just by acting differently and changing lifestyles and standards of living. humans are just a wiser animal, but acknowledging that fact doesn't make them capable. humans are flawed, and in my opinion many of those flaws are automatic
"WHAT? better go look up the definition for the word loyalty...."
i was thinking more in terms of patriotic loyalty/blind support for something simply by association. take the u.s. supporting israel as an example
The first step towards change is acknowledging that you can change.
change is temporary
still a one way street..
...a cycle of bipolar satisfaction nevertheless.
one minute we aren't satisfied, so we toil and suffer through a trial of changes resulting in a minute of satisfaction, and the next minute we are watching ourselves roll down a hill like a car without brakes that won't shift out of neutral.
so far, that slope has ended gradually before leveling back out into a plane, but eventually it will be cliff. don't hold your breath for the optimism of mankind.
you can't win them all, just ask the new england patriots
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemehul
You're a fool then. Read your history, USA demolished loads of democracies to let loose dictators to roam freely. Also, USA supported Saddam Hussein, as a dictator, and gave him WMD to use upon his own ppl, and he killed hundreds of thousands.
Also, Obama will lower taxes for 90% of the population. Mccain would lower taxes for the rich only, and make the rich richer. Plus he had bimbo-palin, the smartest woman ever to live. (haha)
Also, most fanatics aren't fanatics until driven to it. Hamas for example, is a product of Israeli opression. Palestinians used to be very secular, but they are cornered and desperate ppl without education turn to religion.
Be nice to ppl, don't bomb them, and they won't bomb you.
Osama Bin Laden is a product of american idiocy. You messed up, and created Osama bin Laden.
Way to top a dead thread Stoffi.
Must be a Norway thing tho because anyone that actually thinks Obama or anyone else will lower taxes with 2 wars going on on top of the spending plan he wants to implement really hasnt a clue.Taxing the rich is actually the worst thing as they own all the companies,all that will do is make them lower production,close plants and ship even more jobs over seas. lowering taxes helps the economy not raising them .
For all of the who voted for who look at how the poorest states per capital voted not for Obama.the rich northeastern states ,and liberal California where most of the so called rich people ,old money families are from and Florida where most retired to voted for Obama because they know their taxes wont be raised.
To many my teacher said or i learned in school in this thread tho which is only as good as the teachers ideas themself.
Thanks Sully
If you look at the topline numbers, maybe. But that's not anywhere close to the whole story. Check out this link:Quote:
For all of the who voted for who look at how the poorest states per capital voted not for Obama.the rich northeastern states ,and liberal California where most of the so called rich people ,old money families are from and Florida where most retired to voted for Obama because they know their taxes wont be raised.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...c%20map&st=cse
I think that tells you what you need to know...
I think there are very few people still saying that right now...Quote:
lowering taxes helps the economy not raising them .
Look at the actual states. which state do you think has more poor or lower class people and who did those states vote for ?
Alabama or California
Arkansas or Connecticut
Georgia or Delaware
Louisiana or Maine
Oklahoma or Massachusetts
Tennesse or Pennsylvania
most of these states on the left are very poor states and if you have ever been to any of them its obvious they are also other than the major cities.
the states on the right if you have ever been there even the coutry side outside of the cities is no where near as poor as the other few states in thsi example.
the poorest states didnt vote for Obama for some reason while the upper east coast sure did.
Any person who thinks taxing bussinesses which means the top 5% of people who actually own most of the large companies aswell as their satalite companies that filter off of them will help the economy has no clue how bussiness works.its easy to say tax the wealthy but its the wealthy guy that buys the 500k car or boat or $50 mil.home that these saleman gets a % of that pays their bills also who in turn spend that money on a $40k car or send their kids to school .its a filter process that extends down when taxes are raised.If the rich guy has to spend 5 mil more on something than he did last year do you think he will not make that up whether by lay offs or over charging some other bussiness for something they need ? these people didnt get rich being stupid nor will most lose anything thruout it. middle class people lose money on the stock market trying to get rich. not the upper class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlymad
The rich companies got enough benefits and money as it is. In Norway, oil companies tax 76%, and they are still rich! And it's much cheaper to get oil in usa aswell, so the oil companies are extremely rich.
Anyways, without consumers, nothing gets sold. You need your consumers to have money, so they can buy stuff and thereby invest in american companies.
and yeah, way to bump a dead thread :)
And as i said tho. they pass those extra taxes down. they remain rich while the working class take it in the rear because prices go up.it all filters downward. So as you say comsumers need money to keep the economy going.raising taxes on the rich means they raise their prices forceing the working people to have even less to spend which defeats the purpose of the tax increase. A tax increase is always good for 1 thing only. higher government spending for thingsa they swear we have to have but never see the benefits of.
I take it you didn't even click on the link, did you...
Those states voting in larger percentages for Republicans has more to do with religion than the economy. You basically referenced the bible belt... This is an area that Republicans have targetted to get those one-issue 'moral' voters to flock to them by promising things like a constitutional gay marriage amendment which they had no intention of actually delivering on.
The Republican party itself is just a cobbed together union of separate factions. The fiscal conservatives (ie- most of the House delegation- the ones who shot down the original bailout plan) couldn't care less about the 'moral' issues that the social conservatives are obsessed with, nor do they want the expense associated with the neocons' imperialist dreams for America. The social conservatives are one-issue voters who only go to the polls to make sure their religious views make it into law- which is why ballot initiatives (like the gay marriage ban in California and abortion ban in South Dakota) succeed in getting more of them to the polls. The neocons don't really care who they have to court to get what they want done. They suffer from visions of grandeur and the end justifies the means for them- (see Bush the second and his crew...) Libertarians have become more visible as well, being outraged at the growth in government seen during Bush's reign- the exact opposite of what they want to see happen.
And why did all of these groups come together? Because none of them have anywhere near enough support to win an election on their own! Your ignorant voter assessment is just wrong and if that was passed down by a teacher, then our education system is in worse shape than I thought...
Now, on to your economic wanderings. What you're describing is the delusion of 'trickle down economics.' I think it's plain to see, however, that this is a farce. Historical tax rates have been much higher (well over 70% at times) for the top income bracket, compared to the current 35%, yet our economy has crashed anyway. Just take a look at your example to see why this theory doesn't work. You mention a rich guy buying a $50mil house. Well, if he's making, say 9 or 10 figures anually, I think he was going to buy the house whether his tax was 35% or 45%, what do you think? You betcha. And how about the car or boat? $0.5mil..? Chump change, of course. So lowering taxes on rich people doesn't cause them to buy more stuff, it just gives them more cash to dabble in the types of risky investments that have ACTUALLY crashed our economy. (And some to hide in off-shore bank accounts)
And people, for the purposes of discussing big business, income tax is different than corporate tax!! Raising income taxes does not mean a CEO will need to lay off employees. If the corporate tax and FICA are not changed, then the tax burden of companies is the same, all that changes is how much the executives and top earners in the company need to pay on their personal taxes in April. And if the CEO wants to lay off employees to give himself a bigger salary to cover his increased personal taxes, well then f*%^ him. :p
Amen.Quote:
Anyways, without consumers, nothing gets sold. You need your consumers to have money, so they can buy stuff and thereby invest in american companies.
yea i saw your link. also saw where it came from. may as well been CNN .Most of the states are also heavy in the Minority vote and they didnt even win the state.
yes taxes have been higher before, last time they were high President Clinton had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lower their standards and allow people who couldnt get loans to now be able to. 8 years later those banks had more defaulted loans and collapsed or helped collapse the economy
When you own a bussiness 10+ years you can explain to me how taxation actually works and no trickle down sure isnt a farce. Most small bussiness owners face it every day.We see first hand how taxation effects not only our bussinesses but also hiring,expanding and every aspect of it.the only farce is that people dont understand it because the media tells them it isnt so.
You must not have heard the Bush speech that said 'Everyone in America should be able to buy a home' then.
It's banks making bad loans, bad investments. How many credit card offers were sent to you when you turned 18?
No it does not work. It has been proven NOT to work. Look at 20+ years of trickle-down economics has done. The wealthy are doing just fine. No problem making sure the children are fed. It the working class that has gotten the shaft. Trickle down makes the wealthy more wealthy and the lower classes get what 'trickle down'.Quote:
When you own a bussiness 10+ years you can explain to me how taxation actually works and no trickle down sure isnt a farce.
Put the money directly into the hands of the working class and you will see more spending. More spending means more profit to make out there. When people are spending money and profits are up, jobs are created. What point is there in putting more money into the hands of the wealthy with tax cuts when the population doesn't have the money to spend to create profit? If the people are not spending money, your not making profits. Your sure as hell are not going to be creating more jobs...
What does the source have to do with it? It's merely comparing vote totals between 2008 and 2004.. Feel free to compare the raw numbers yourself, you'll come up with the same info. (And FYI- if I was going to pick one of the 24/7 news networks to put in the same boat as NYT, I'd pick MSNBC...)Quote:
yea i saw your link. also saw where it came from. may as well been CNN .Most of the states are also heavy in the Minority vote and they didnt even win the state.
Well, where do I start. Ok, first take a look at this. Suggesting that taxes were 'high' under Clinton is a joke.Quote:
yes taxes have been higher before, last time they were high President Clinton had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lower their standards and allow people who couldnt get loans to now be able to. 8 years later those banks had more defaulted loans and collapsed or helped collapse the economy
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/...175910,00.html
Open the spreadsheet and look at the top tax rates. Under Clinton it was 39.6%, Bush II lowered it to 35%. Go back just a little farther and see what 'high' really is! Post-WWII it was at 91%! Sure, Clinton's rates were a little higher than the end of Reagan through Bush I, but in no way can you call it 'high taxes.'
The other problem with that statement is that the subprime loans are what caused the economic meltdown. Sure, that had a part, but only because these loans were sold as soon as they were issued and became fodder for investment banks and hedge funds. Overall, subprime loans as of late last year made up less than 13% of all home loans. If these loans stayed with their original issuers, sure it would've hit some hard, but I don't think any banks would have gone under. There would have been a little wake up call, maybe a few mergers and we would have moved on already. But instead, these loans were sold, bundled, rebundled, bet on through swaps, etc, inflating their value and risk exponentially.
The real issue is the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that was put in place to specifically outlaw this kind of activity to prevent another Great Depression. While it did pass under Clinton, this was merely caving to decades of pressure by the financial industry, and with credit due in no small part to Phil Gramm, Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. The act that repealed Glass-Steagall was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and was inserted as a 262-page amendment to the final version of a $384 billion omnibus spending bill. (A side-note, yes this is the same Phil Gramm that was McCain's economic advisor!) This rolled back the rules separating commercial and investment banks, insurance companies and securities firms which has led to the insane investments we see today. The subprime loans aren't even the half of the problem though. The Act specifically kept regulation out of the swaps market, and that is where the problem is. Go do some reading, it will shock you. (And if reading about an unregulated house-of-cards market worth $62 trillion [yes, trillion] doesn't shock you, I don't really want to know what will...)
That may be more info than needed, but basically throwing the blame at Freddie, Fannie and Bill Clinton is oversimplifying and, frankly the type of thing that enables this greed and excess...
Now as a small business owner, you're not seeing the first-hand effects of trickle down economics. What you are actually seeing is the money trickling up. Giving tax breaks to those who don't even come close to spending the money they already have (which I assume is a boat that most small business owners do not fall into) won't encourage them to spend more. But money given to those whose needs meet or exceed their yearly salary is money that WILL be spent. Example: My wife and I have one car. We've had 2 in the past and need to again with kids, jobs, etc, but we can't afford it. Especially with winter in Vermont coming.. But if the economy was better with better wages, higher paying jobs available, food prices under control, and basically more money in our pockets, then hell yeah we'd have a second car. And if I had enough room in my pay, I'd actually be contributing to my 401k putting money into the markets. I think you get the point.. And most small businesses do well when people buy their stuff. The 'consumers' of our society are the poor and middle-class, so if they have cash to burn, they are buying the stuff that makes the economy go round. And this is why money trickles up, not down. I think the past few decades have shown us clearly that the top 1% just hoard any wealth they get and try as hard as they can to keep any from 'trickling' out of their grasp... (Also, what do politicians, even Republicans, do when they want to 'stimulate the economy?' I can remember receiving a check in the mail on two separate occasions, and I am far from the top 1%.. :p )
I would urge you to look a little deeper into these subjects. Even though you accuse me of listening to what the media tells me, your rhetoric is exactly what's been drilled into everyone's head by the media and what's enabled the corporate greed and fraud that has crashed our economy. The media pushes tax cuts for the rich as a means of saving the economy even though it has yet to, the media has scapegoated Freddie and Fannie, the media pushes the idea that Democrats can't compete nationwide. And worst of all lately, the media refuses to cover the issues that are actually killing our economy and instead gets away with blaming millions of poor people in this country for the state our economy is in, as if some bad home loans could ever cause a worldwide recession!
Actually... If you look up any reliable data, you'll find trickle down only helps the rich. And it doesn't help small business owners because they normally do not make enough to hit the top marginal tax rate. tax cuts for small businesses, is in fact a middle class tax break. Not a reagan corporate tax break. The problem is that there is tight money, and loose money. Cutting taxes isn't always the best route. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. When rich people have too much money they just save, but if they truly ARE overtaxed, then we still don't really lose many jobs, you just get inflation.
The problem in usa is that the large business owners have been made filthy rich by low taxation and because they pay their workers less than any underdeveloped country. When oil companies in Norway can pay 78% tax, so can oil companies in USA. It's much cheaper to pump up oil in USA, production costs are lower and wages are far from norwegian wages, oil workers in Norway make alot of money. I'd say an average oil worker makes 90000 dollars. Yeah, that's the guys on the floor.Quote:
Originally Posted by onlymad
in 1970 our dollar was at its strongest. CEO's made 25x the average worker, and our standard of living was the highest it has ever been in American History. The top marginal tax rate was double what it is today.
Today our CEO's make about 250x their average worker and our standard of living is going down.
Do CEO's work 10x harder now then they did then? No. Were they happy with what they got? Yes, they had to be and it worked fine. The only reason we are told otherwise is because that CEO can make a quick unnecessary buck by convincing you that they won't be able to hire you if you don't give them tax breaks, or repeal the estate tax.
The fact is that all rich people do with the tax breaks are to save it and invest it which causes crisis. Basically they pass around the money to each other, and some to the investor class, and nearly none of it goes to blue collar Americans.
This is a quote from FDR's Chairman of the Fed explaining the Great Depression:
"As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption; mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and services offered by the nation's economic machinery. Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped."
good post
Thank you. : )
great post im from the uk and its very simular i will take a paragrapgh from you script...
"But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped."
what are idiot but in this case prudent prime minister has done is give money back to the people so consumer spending can inject the economy through personal spending the only flaw with his idea is that the uk is now in debt to the tune of 500% of GDP and to tell people how bad thatis the USA is at around a 100% of GDP from borrowing BUT THE WARNING IS ICELAND was 900% of GDP and they went bankrupt so the UK is half war there it's a gamble which i personally hope pays off!!!
by the way great topic and post SUGGLEYSOFT