As requested by bigmack

[mostpost]

Here is a list of accomplishments by the Obama administration:
http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

Highlights include but are not limited to:
Within days after taking office, he signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse. http://1.usa.gov/dUvbu5

Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money. http://n.pr/hcgBn1

In his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economy 3.5%. http://reut.rs/i46CEE

He completed the massive TARP financial and banking rescue plan, and recovered virtually all of its costs. http://1.usa.gov/eA5jVS http://bit.ly/eCNrD6

He signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act giving the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud in every corner of the financial system. It also created a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial fraud that led to the economic meltdown. http://abcn.ws/g18Fe7

He dismantled the Minerals Management Service, thereby moveing forward to cut ties between energy companies and the government. http://nyti.ms/bw1MLu

He pushed through and got passed Dodd-Frank, one of the largest and most comprehensive Wall Street reforms since the Great Depression. http://bit.ly/hWCPg0 http://bit.ly/geHpcD

He pushed through, signed and demanded the Pentagon enact a repeal of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that forced soldiers to lie to fight for their country, and put our troops at risk by disqualifying many qualified soldiers from helping. http://bit.ly/fdahuH http://bit.ly/mZV4Pz

He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers. This was after the GOP blocked the bill in 2007. Only 5 Republican Senators voted for the bill. http://bit.ly/fT3Cxg

He visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any previous president during his first six months in office. http://bit.ly/hZycda

He re-established and reinforced our partnership with NATO and other allies on strategic international issues. http://1.usa.gov/e7QuDj

He improved relations with Middle East countries by appointing special envoys. http://1.usa.gov/tiGAGe

He ordered the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. It was Republicans (and a smattering of Democrats) who prevented him from following through. http://bit.ly/eW6CVF

He authorized a $1.4 billion reduction in Star Wars program in 2010. http://1.usa.gov/gLFZl2

Completely reformed the student loan program, to make it possible for students to refinance at a lower rate. http://nyti.ms/dMvHOt

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act , he invested heavily in elementary, secondary and post-secondary education. http://1.usa.gov/gGRIAr This includes a major expansion of broadband availability in K-12 schools nationwide http://bit.ly/fNDcj3 , as well as an expansion in school construction. http://bit.ly/fYwNrV


Ordered and oversaw the Navy SEALS operation that killed Osama bin Laden. http://bit.ly/jChpgw

He created a Presidential Memorandum to restore scientific integrity in government decision-making.
http://1.usa.gov/g2SDuw

He eliminated the Bush-era restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. He also provided increased federal support for biomedical and stem cell research. http://bit.ly/h36SSO http://ti.me/edezge


This is but a small percentage of Obama's accomplishments, most of which took place in the face of strong opposition from Know Nothing Republicans in Congress.

[bigmack]

You owe me two monitors as your little cut & paste job from "Please cut the crap.com" that you posted made me urp, puke, upchuck, vomit, toss my cookies, blow chunks, drop chowder, all over them.

I see nothing of the "Affordable" Health Care Act in your laughable post. That was herculean. Whoopsie, it's unconstitutional! :lol:

Your boy will go down as one of the biggest ding dongs in histree.

[mostpost]

You owe me two monitors as your little cut & paste job from "Please cut the crap.com" that you posted made me urp, puke, upchuck, vomit, toss my cookies, blow chunks, drop chowder, all over them.

I see nothing of the "Affordable" Health Care Act in your laughable post. That was herculean. Whoopsie, it's unconstitutional! :lol:

Your boy will go down as one of the biggest ding dongs in histree.

Exactly the response I expected. Lots of ridicule and zero substance. Somehow I missed the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Health Care Act. I think I will wait for that rather than rely on the ruling from Justice Burger Boy.

i did not take a lot of time composing that list as I knew that no rational discussion would come from you.

[ElKabong]

Here is a list of accomplishments by the Obama administration:
http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

Highlights include but are not limited to:
Within days after taking office, he signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse. http://1.usa.gov/dUvbu5

:1: Results> Record deficits

Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money. http://n.pr/hcgBn1

In his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economy 3.5%. http://reut.rs/i46CEE

:1a: Compared to Bush's best years, this is a failure

He completed the massive TARP financial and banking rescue plan, and recovered virtually all of its costs. http://1.usa.gov/eA5jVS http://bit.ly/eCNrD6

:2: Jamie Dimon, he say "Holla"!

He signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act giving the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud in every corner of the financial system. It also created a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial fraud that led to the economic meltdown. http://abcn.ws/g18Fe7

:2b: Name all the Financial crooks that have been arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned on his watch.

He dismantled the Minerals Management Service, thereby moveing forward to cut ties between energy companies and the government. http://nyti.ms/bw1MLu

:3: Gas prices higher today than when he entered office...FAIL
The mining industry was turned upside down in assclown's first 2 yrs in office, barely recovering now....MAJOR FAIL

He pushed through and got passed Dodd-Frank, one of the largest and most comprehensive Wall Street reforms since the Great Depression. http://bit.ly/hWCPg0 http://bit.ly/geHpcD

:4: ROTFLMBFAO !!! (Corzine just grabbed his crotch, gave it a lift, and laughed at the above law)

He pushed through, signed and demanded the Pentagon enact a repeal of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that forced soldiers to lie to fight for their country, and put our troops at risk by disqualifying many qualified soldiers from helping. http://bit.ly/fdahuH http://bit.ly/mZV4Pz

:5: Snore.....

He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers. This was after the GOP blocked the bill in 2007. Only 5 Republican Senators voted for the bill. http://bit.ly/fT3Cxg

:6: Then why are women in this admin's white house severely underpaid? LOL.....FAIL

He visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any previous president during his first six months in office. http://bit.ly/hZycda

:7: Increased the federal travel budget....CHECK

He re-established and reinforced our partnership with NATO and other allies on strategic international issues. http://1.usa.gov/e7QuDj

:8: Useless....more wars going on now than ever. Of course Obama owes Putin a favor, so......

He improved relations with Middle East countries by appointing special envoys. http://1.usa.gov/tiGAGe

:9: Then why the F do we have troops dying over there???

He ordered the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. It was Republicans (and a smattering of Democrats) who prevented him from following through. http://bit.ly/eW6CVF

:10: Cry me a river with the "oooo, the republicans won't let me" shit. Lead or get out of the way. I suggest the latter.

He authorized a $1.4 billion reduction in Star Wars program in 2010. http://1.usa.gov/gLFZl2

:11: This would have been done anyway...SNORE

Completely reformed the student loan program, to make it possible for students to refinance at a lower rate. http://nyti.ms/dMvHOt

:12: Look up the unemployment rate among college grads under age 25. Too many students in useless majors, these kids come out with no transferable skills for the workplace

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act , he invested heavily in elementary, secondary and post-secondary education. http://1.usa.gov/gGRIAr This includes a major expansion of broadband availability in K-12 schools nationwide http://bit.ly/fNDcj3 , as well as an expansion in school construction. http://bit.ly/fYwNrV

:13: You're bragging on performance in the classroom? LOL!! Really?


Ordered and oversaw the Navy SEALS operation that killed Osama bin Laden. http://bit.ly/jChpgw

:14: He sat in a room. On his ass. Read up on him stalling, but glad he moved on it

He created a Presidential Memorandum to restore scientific integrity in government decision-making.
http://1.usa.gov/g2SDuw

:15: Enemlies List.....Bribes to embarrassing pastor.....Chalk this one to MAJOR FAIL

He eliminated the Bush-era restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. He also provided increased federal support for biomedical and stem cell research. http://bit.ly/h36SSO http://ti.me/edezge

:16: More spending? Wwoohoo..Parrrrty!


This is but a small percentage of Obama's accomplishments, most of which took place in the face of strong opposition from Know Nothing Republicans in Congress.

:17: We ain't buying this horseshit. Go sell it elsewhere

[Greyfox]

Mostie, you penned above:

"He ordered the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. It was Republicans (and a smattering of Democrats) who prevented him from following through."

How do you sleep at night after writing such a bald faced lie?
Obama and the Democrats controlled the Congress for two years.
He had lots of opportunity to close Guantanamo Bay before he lost majority control of it.
The fact is he didn't.
Obama had lots of opportunity to close that prison and choose not to.
Democrats have only themselves to blame for that.
(Personally, I think that it would have been stupid to close that prison, but then again I think many of Obama's decisions border on stupidity.)

[bigmack]

Exactly the response I expected. Lots of ridicule and zero substance.
Let's take a look under the hood of your "substance."

Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money. :lol: :lol:

Get outta town, Schmoe. I learned long ago not to engage in a debate with you. You're WAY too indoctrinated. Do you walk like a robot?

My gains on Mitt winning the election could be further augmented if you want 'in' on The Supremes finding ObamaCrapCare unconstitutional. You're a betting man, right? Ask around, several folk are already dusting off their checkbooks for November.

[Greyfox]

"He pushed through, signed and demanded the Pentagon enact a repeal of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that forced soldiers to lie to fight for their country, and put our troops at risk by disqualifying many qualified soldiers from helping."

More faulty thinking noted.
Yes he put through a demand to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
But putting troops at risk by disqualifying many qualified soldiers from helping?
First of all, if a soldier isn't on the battlefield, he won't be at risk.
Secondly, in some countries, gay soldiers would be at greater risk if their disposition is found out by the enemy.

[Greyfox]

"He improved relations with Middle East countries by appointing special envoys."

Geez. The list of bullshit just goes on.
The Muslim brotherhood appears to be dominating Egypt today.
Who knows what is happening as Libya shakes down.
America's relationships with Iran, Pakistan and Israel (an ally) have never been more strained.

[Greyfox]

"He pushed through and got passed Dodd-Frank, one of the largest and most comprehensive Wall Street reforms since the Great Depression."

All smoke and mirrors.
The recent developments at J.P. Morgan should have twigged you to that before you even posted that tripe.

[Robert Goren]

"He pushed through and got passed Dodd-Frank, one of the largest and most comprehensive Wall Street reforms since the Great Depression."

All smoke and mirrors.
The recent developments at J.P. Morgan should have twigged you to that before you even posted that tripe.Not all of Dodd-Frank has taken effect yet. I can't believe that you don't know that.

[Robert Goren]

"He improved relations with Middle East countries by appointing special envoys."

Geez. The list of bullshit just goes on.
The Muslim brotherhood appears to be dominating Egypt today.
Who knows what is happening as Libya shakes down.
America's relationships with Iran, Pakistan and Israel (an ally) have never been more strained.Really Iran? What about in 1980 when Iran was holding our embassy people hostage? Maybe you are too young to remember?

[toetoe]

This is but a small percentage of Obama's accomplishments, most of which took place in the face of strong opposition from Know Nothing Republicans in Congress.


:eek: ... and you're proud of all this forcin' and pushin' through ? I've heard that Mussolini at least got the trains to run on time. Anything like that with the Race President ? Well, at least he has exemplary behavior as a youth, and his academic record to stand on ... oops, it seems I've lost my copies of those records. :blush:

Here's an NYT editorial snippet I invite you to defend, O Most Washington Post:

"... The proposal suggests Ricketts gave his preliminary approval ... To defuse the inevitable attack that the ad is racist [sic] ... It's hard to imagine why the plan's authors believed it would change opinions about Obama. Americans know him well and most know he is not a left-wing radical [ :lol: ] ..."

Okay, so a guy gives preliminary approval to an expose of a taboo subject in the Era of the Racialist-in-Chief --- preliminary approval, mind you --- and he's evil incarnate.

The inevitability of charges of racism is not alarming [I]per se to the editor, just the failure of non-Obamunists to quit at the first laydown of the race card.

Can't these fools just say they're in love with the first gay President and leave it at that ? Do they imagine that attacking his critics will magically transform their failed policies and logic-free rhetoric into common sense ?



Remember, boys and girls:

Transform the dominant paradigm !!! C'mon, let's move !!! You in or not ?

[lsbets]

He "oversaw" the killing of Bin Laden? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Give me a ****ing break. He sat in the safety of the white house and watched the feed on TV. That's not exactly oversight. Unless watching on TV counts. In that case, I oversaw I'll Have Another's win in the Preakness, although I did not order it.

[Greyfox]

Really Iran? What about in 1980 when Iran was holding our embassy people hostage? Maybe you are too young to remember?

You don't get out much, watch TV, listen to the radio or get the papers do you?
The powers that be have been talking about using force against Iran.
From today's news:

CNN) -- The U.S. Senate unanimously voted to tighten sanctions on Iran on Monday, three days after a dispute over whether to include the threat of American force stalled the legislation.

[elysiantraveller]

Not all of Dodd-Frank has taken effect yet. I can't believe that you don't know that.

Dodd-Frank is the death sentence to the local community bank that you grew up accustomed too...

Stunning victory...

[mostpost]

He "oversaw" the killing of Bin Laden? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Give me a ****ing break. He sat in the safety of the white house and watched the feed on TV. That's not exactly oversight. Unless watching on TV counts. In that case, I oversaw I'll Have Another's win in the Preakness, although I did not order it.
None of those Navy Seals would have been anywhere near Bin Laden's hideout if Obama had not ordered the mission to take place. There were big risks involved and Obama would have born the brunt of the criticism had the raid failed. Bush had a similar-maybe better-opportunity take down bin Laden at Bora Bora and he passed on it.

You saw I'll have Another's win in the Preakness. You did not oversee it.

[jognlope]

He's pushed for the apprentice programs at companies, tried to pass legislation to increasing funding for community colleges, like the Pell grants. Colleges have an outdated classical education curriculum, except for applied sciences, that have no use in today's job market. The deficit is about 10-15% Obama's, the rest Bush (drug prescription program, two unfunded wars).

[lsbets]

None of those Navy Seals would have been anywhere near Bin Laden's hideout if Obama had not ordered the mission to take place. There were big risks involved and Obama would have born the brunt of the criticism had the raid failed. Bush had a similar-maybe better-opportunity take down bin Laden at Bora Bora and he passed on it.

You saw I'll have Another's win in the Preakness. You did not oversee it.

I've given him credit for saying yes when the plan was presented to him. But he did not oversee the operation. If you think he did, than you are completely out of touch with reality.

[JustRalph]

"He improved relations with Middle East countries by appointing special envoys."

Egyptian poll: Romney 73, Obama 25

Check out that bottom number ..............

http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2012/05/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2012/5/21%20egyptian%20elections%20poll%20telhami/egyptpollv201.jpg

[Tom]

Mostie, you penned above:

"He ordered the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. It was Republicans (and a smattering of Democrats) who prevented him from following through."

How do you sleep at night after writing such a bald faced lie?
Obama and the Democrats controlled the Congress for two years.
He had lots of opportunity to close Guantanamo Bay before he lost majority control of it.
The fact is he didn't.
Obama had lots of opportunity to close that prison and choose not to.
Democrats have only themselves to blame for that.
(Personally, I think that it would have been stupid to close that prison, but then again I think many of Obama's decisions border on stupidity.)


Same time frame, no budget passed.
A failed presidency is all you can say about Obama.
Well, not all, but we do have TOS now don't we? :D

[Tom]

He "oversaw" the killing of Bin Laden? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Give me a ****ing break. He sat in the safety of the white house and watched the feed on TV. That's not exactly oversight. Unless watching on TV counts. In that case, I oversaw I'll Have Another's win in the Preakness, although I did not order it.

I over-saw the Super Bowl....where the Hell is my ring????

[Tom]

Really Iran? What about in 1980 when Iran was holding our embassy people hostage? Maybe you are too young to remember?

I remember it ending as soon as Ronnie was sworn in. (sa-lute!)
Now, another dem in office is losing control of the situation.

[Tom]

He's pushed for the apprentice programs at companies, tried to pass legislation to increasing funding for community colleges, like the Pell grants. Colleges have an outdated classical education curriculum, except for applied sciences, that have no use in today's job market. The deficit is about 10-15% Obama's, the rest Bush (drug prescription program, two unfunded wars).

That is NOT the role of the Federal government.
It is nothing more than a campaign ploy to get eh young vote - he will forgive college loans before the election. What about people who paid them back...you call that fair?

If you are stupid enough to go to college an take courses that will not get you a job, you deserve to be broke and in debt. You are a moron. ( Not you you...the collective you ;) )

[mostpost]

Underlined comments within quotes all by Elkabong.
Within days after taking office, he signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse. http://1.usa.gov/dUvbu5

Results> Record deficits

Deficits caused by Bush lowering taxes and not reducing spending; by Bush initiating a war without paying for it and by reduced revenues due to economic disaster caused by the illegal actions of banks and financial companies acting without oversight. Auditing contracts and combating waste and abuse kept the situation from getting worse.

Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money. http://n.pr/hcgBn1

In his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economy 3.5%. http://reut.rs/i46CEE

Compared to Bush's best years, this is a failure
Compared to Bush's overall record it is a rousing success. Total jobs created during Bush Administration; just over 1.6. Look it up at BLS.Gov.

He completed the massive TARP financial and banking rescue plan, and recovered virtually all of its costs. http://1.usa.gov/eA5jVS http://bit.ly/eCNrD6

Jamie Dimon, he say "Holla"!
I confess to not knowing what the hell you are talking about here.

He dismantled the Minerals Management Service, thereby moveing forward to cut ties between energy companies and the government. http://nyti.ms/bw1MLu

Gas prices higher today than when he entered office...FAIL
The mining industry was turned upside down in assclown's first 2 yrs in office, barely recovering now....MAJOR FAIL
Gas prices now about the same as the high point during Bush's term. The low prices at the end of 2008 were an anomaly caused by the bursting of the oil bubble and the economy in general.
If, by turned upside down, you mean that they were required to comply with safety and environmental regulations that they could ignore during the Bush years, then yes, the industry was turned upside down. As well it should be.


He pushed through, signed and demanded the Pentagon enact a repeal of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that forced soldiers to lie to fight for their country, and put our troops at risk by disqualifying many qualified soldiers from helping. http://bit.ly/fdahuH http://bit.ly/mZV4Pz

Snore.....
Protecting people's rights bores you, does it?

He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers. This was after the GOP blocked the bill in 2007. Only 5 Republican Senators voted for the bill. http://bit.ly/fT3Cxg

Then why are women in this admin's white house severely underpaid? LOL.....FAIL
Another myth perpetrated by righty bloggers that you fell for. Women doing the same job as men get paid the same.

He visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any previous president during his first six months in office. http://bit.ly/hZycda

Increased the federal travel budget....CHECK
If he did, it was in a good cause. But nobody said he traveled to meet with all those leaders.

He re-established and reinforced our partnership with NATO and other allies on strategic international issues. http://1.usa.gov/e7QuDj

Useless....more wars going on now than ever. Of course Obama owes Putin a favor, so......
Really? Where are we now involved in a war other than Afghanistan?

He improved relations with Middle East countries by appointing special envoys. http://1.usa.gov/tiGAGe

Then why the F do we have troops dying over there???
Because George Bush started two wars over there? In any case a policy of "let's see if we can work things out" is a lot better than a policy of "You are evildoers and we will destroy you."


He ordered the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. It was Republicans (and a smattering of Democrats) who prevented him from following through. http://bit.ly/eW6CVF

Cry me a river with the "oooo, the republicans won't let me" shit. Lead or get out of the way. I suggest the latter.
Leading is difficult when the other side is a bunch of idealogues who would happily destroy the country to get their way.

He authorized a $1.4 billion reduction in Star Wars program in 2010. http://1.usa.gov/gLFZl2

This would have been done anyway...SNORE
You need to do something about your snoring problem. I suggest one of those CPAP devices.

Completely reformed the student loan program, to make it possible for students to refinance at a lower rate. http://nyti.ms/dMvHOt

Look up the unemployment rate among college grads under age 25. Too many students in useless majors, these kids come out with no transferable skills for the workplace
Are you saying that the unemployment rate is caused by student loans. The unemployment rate is caused by the crappy economic policies of the Republicans.

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act , he invested heavily in elementary, secondary and post-secondary education. http://1.usa.gov/gGRIAr This includes a major expansion of broadband availability in K-12 schools nationwide http://bit.ly/fNDcj3 , as well as an expansion in school construction. http://bit.ly/fYwNrV

You're bragging on performance in the classroom? LOL!! Really?

Learn to read!! This is about providing tools for learning that will aid in the education of our students. The results will come.

Ordered and oversaw the Navy SEALS operation that killed Osama bin Laden. http://bit.ly/jChpgw

He sat in a room. On his ass. Read up on him stalling, but glad he moved on it
I am not in any way diminishing the efforts of the Navy Seals, but without the orders from the President and his approval of the plans, they would not have even been in Pakistan.

He created a Presidential Memorandum to restore scientific integrity in government decision-making.
http://1.usa.gov/g2SDuw

Enemlies List.....Bribes to embarrassing pastor.....Chalk this one to MAJOR FAIL[/QUOTE]
What do these totally unproven allegations have to do with scientific integrity? Nothing, that's what.

[QUOTE]He eliminated the Bush-era restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. He also provided increased federal support for biomedical and stem cell research. http://bit.ly/h36SSO http://ti.me/edezge

More spending? Wwoohoo..Parrrrty!
Right! Let's not use all the resources at our command to cure cancer or Alzheimers. Let's ignore the opportunity to eliminate birth defects or cure aids.
Let's narrow our vision to what we can do without spending money. Because it is much more important that you have a few extra dollars in your paycheck than that a child not have MS.

There are a few of your silly responses that I did not respond to because I need to find out more about what you said. Maybe later.

[ElKabong]

Underlined comments within quotes all by Elkabong.


Deficits caused by Bush lowering taxes .....


Stopped reading, right there. You're still in excuse mode. "Bush's fault"

Grow up. We're MUCH deeper in debt under this preznit, you just won't admit it. Either your loyalty blinds you, or your ignorance prevents you from admitting his failure.

AAA rating no more...under whose watch?

Failure, all the way around

[ElKabong]

That is NOT the role of the Federal government.
It is nothing more than a campaign ploy to get eh young vote - he will forgive college loans before the election. What about people who paid them back...you call that fair?

If you are stupid enough to go to college an take courses that will not get you a job, you deserve to be broke and in debt. You are a moron. ( Not you you...the collective you ;) )

This!

One of our Facilties guys came up bragging this morning about how his kid graduated from UT this weekend (got in b/c of the 10% rule, the kid had no business attending UT unless it was chasing a soft major). He was beaming with pride.

I asked what his kid's major was, he said "Communications" with a suffix I'd never heard of to the study. I asked him, does he have an offer from a company? (No). Does he have any employers asking him to interview (No). Does the kid have any kind of internship lined up, or looking into one? (No). What is he going to do? (Travel to Mexico to see his grandparents, then look for a job)

This is why the whole "pushing for student loans" fiasco is killing America. We're sending kids to Universities that chase degrees that simply don't give the graduate a chance at a promising career. It's a feel-good measure that's costing us a fortune. Or, maybe Pols think that with kids in classes keep them off the unemployment rolls. Not sure which, either way it's a bad idea.

This kid will NEVER be able to pay that 50k or so back to Uncle Sam. He's not bright (he worked at our facility part time one summer), now he's equipped with a shitty freebie degree in what amounts to knitting.

And we're paying for it :mad:

[lsbets]

This!

One of our Facilties guys came up bragging this morning about how his kid graduated from UT this weekend (got in b/c of the 10% rule, the kid had no business attending UT unless it was chasing a soft major). He was beaming with pride.

I asked what his kid's major was, he said "Communications" with a suffix I'd never heard of to the study. I asked him, does he have an offer from a company? (No). Does he have any employers asking him to interview (No). Does the kid have any kind of internship lined up, or looking into one? (No). What is he going to do? (Travel to Mexico to see his grandparents, then look for a job)

This is why the whole "pushing for student loans" fiasco is killing America. We're sending kids to Universities that chase degrees that simply don't give the graduate a chance at a promising career. It's a feel-good measure that's costing us a fortune. Or, maybe Pols think that with kids in classes keep them off the unemployment rolls. Not sure which, either way it's a bad idea.

This kid will NEVER be able to pay that 50k or so back to Uncle Sam. He's not bright (he worked at our facility part time one summer), now he's equipped with a shitty freebie degree in what amounts to knitting.

And we're paying for it :mad:

And the easy access to student loans which cannot be discharged in bankruptcy is what has caused the price of higher education to go through the roof.

Another sounds good lets do it failed policy by the federal government. And the dupes keep falling for it.

[badcompany]

Get outta town, Schmoe. I learned long ago not to engage in a debate with you. You're WAY too indoctrinated. Do you walk like a robot?



Anyone who could actually believe this is beyond help:

The economy does well when taxes are higher. High taxes are the cause of the economy doing well and here is why. When taxes are low the business owner just keeps a larger percentage of his profits and does not reinvest in his business. When taxes are high he can lower his tax obligation by reinvesting in his business. Yes, he can also do this if taxes are low, but he has less incentive to do so. In any case lowering taxes is not an incentive for a business owner to expand his business and hire new workers unless he has already started to sell more of his product. Just giving him the money does not mean he will invest it in his business. He will most likely put it away for fear that the downturn will worsen.

[badcompany]

This!

One of our Facilties guys came up bragging this morning about how his kid graduated from UT this weekend (got in b/c of the 10% rule, the kid had no business attending UT unless it was chasing a soft major). He was beaming with pride.

I asked what his kid's major was, he said "Communications" with a suffix I'd never heard of to the study. I asked him, does he have an offer from a company? (No). Does he have any employers asking him to interview (No). Does the kid have any kind of internship lined up, or looking into one? (No). What is he going to do? (Travel to Mexico to see his grandparents, then look for a job)

This is why the whole "pushing for student loans" fiasco is killing America. We're sending kids to Universities that chase degrees that simply don't give the graduate a chance at a promising career. It's a feel-good measure that's costing us a fortune. Or, maybe Pols think that with kids in classes keep them off the unemployment rolls. Not sure which, either way it's a bad idea.

This kid will NEVER be able to pay that 50k or so back to Uncle Sam. He's not bright (he worked at our facility part time one summer), now he's equipped with a shitty freebie degree in what amounts to knitting.

And we're paying for it :mad:

Great post. Another side effect of this is that kids like the one in your post come out of school with an elitist attitude that, because of their degree, they're too good to do the jobs for which they are actually qualified.

It's yet another example of central planning = fail.

[mostpost]

Anyone who could actually believe this is beyond help:

BC's quote refers to my contention that higher taxes not only don't hurt the economy but actually help it. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Or in the statistics. I made up a table which I copied and pasted below. I tried to post it as an attachment but it said it was an invalid file type, and I do not know how to convert. Apologies if it is difficult to read.
There are five columns
The first column is the year and type of administration R=Republican etc.
The second column is the top tax rate for that year.
The third column is the point at which that top rate kicks in.
The fourth column is the gain or loss of the GDP for that year by %
The fifth column (starting in 1948) shows the unemployment rate. Since I could not find an annual rate, I posted the lowest and highest monthly rate for each year.

If you look at the table honestly, you will see that the largest growth in GDP and the lowest rates of unemployment consistently coincide with the period of higher top tax rates. There are a few exceptions, but not many.


Year top tax rate In effect at GDP gain/loss unemployment
1930 R 25% $100,000 -8.6% Na
1931 R 25% $100,000 -6.5% na
1932 R 63% $1,000,000 -13.1% na
1933 D 63% $1.000,000 -1.3% na
1934 D 63% $1,000,000 10.9 na
1935 D 63% $1,000,000 8.9 Na
1936 D 79% $5,000,000 13.1 Na
1937 D 79% $5,000,000 5.1 Na
1938D 79% $5.000,000 -3.4 na
1939D 79% $5,000,000 8.1 Na
1940D 79% $5,000,000 8.8 Na
1941D 81% $5,000,000 17.1 na
1942D 88% $200,000 18.5 Na
1943D 88% $200,000 16.4 Na
1944D 94% $200,000 8.1 Na
1945D 94% $200,000 -1.1 Na
1946D 91% $200,000 -10.9 na
1947D 91% $200,000 -0.9 Na
1948D 91% $200,000 4,4 3.4 to 4.0
1949D 91% $200,000 -0.5 4.3 to 7.9
1950D 91% $200,000 8.7 4.2 TO 6.5
1951D 91% $200,000 7.7 3.0 TO 3.5
1952D 92% $200,000 3.8 2.7 to 3.4
1953R 92% $200,000 4.6 2.5 TO 4.5
1954R 91% $200,000 -0.6 4.9 to 6.1
1955R 91% $400,000 7.2 4.0 to 4.9
1956R 91% $400,000 2.0 3.9 to 4.4

Year tax rate in effect at GDP gain/loss Unemployment
1957R 91% $400,000 2.0 3.7 to 5.2
1958R 91% $400,000 -0.9 5.8 to 7.5
1959R 91% $400,000 7.2 5.0 to 6.0
1960R 91% $400,000 2.5 4.8 to 6.6
1961D 91% $400,000 2.3 6.0 to 7.1
1962D 91% $400.000 6.1 5.4 to5.8
1963D 91% $400,000 4.4 5.4 to 5.9
1964D 77% $400,000 5.8 4.8 to 5.6
1965D 70% $200,000 6.4 4.0 to 5.1
1966D 70% $200,000 6.5 3.6 to 4.0
1967D 70% $200,000 2.5 3.8 to 4.0
1968D 70% $200,000 4.8 3.4 to 3.8
1969R 70% $200,000 3.1 3.4 to 3.7
1970R 70% $200,000 0.2 3.9 to 6.1
1971R 70% $200,000 3.4 5.8 to 6.1
1972R 70% $200,000 5.3 5.2 to 5.8
1973R 70% $200,000 5.8 4.6 to 5.0
1974R 70% $200,000 -0.6 5.1 to 7.2
1975R 70% $200,000 -0.2 8.1 to 9.0
1976R 70% $200,000 5.4 7.4 to 7.0
1977D 70% $203,200 4.6 6.4 to 7.6
1978D 70% $203,200 5.6 5.8 to 6.4
1979D 70% $215,400 3.1 5.6 to 6.0
1980D 70% $215,400 -0.3 6.3 to 7.8
1981R 70% $215,400 2.5 7.2 to 8.5
1982R 50% $85,000 -1.9 8.6 to 10.8
1983R 50% $109,400 4.5 8.3 to 10.4

Year tax rate effective at GDP gain/loss unemployment
1984R 50% $162,400 7.2 7.2 to 8.0
1985R 50% $169,020 4.1 7.0 to 7.4
1986R 50% $175,250 3.5 6.6 to 7.2
1987R 38.5% $90,0000 3.2 5.7 to 6.6
1988R 28% $29,750 4.1 5.3 to 5.7
1989R 28 % $30,950 3.6 5.0 to 5.4
1990R 28% $32,450 1.9 5.2 to 6.3
1991R 31% $82,150 -0.2 6.4 to 7.3
1992R 31% $86,500 3.4 7.3 to 7.8
1993D 39.6% $250,000 4.1 6.5 to 7.3
1994D 39.6% $250,000 4.1 5.5 to 6.6
1995D 39.6% $256,500 2.5 5.4 to 5.8
1996D 39.6% $263,750 3.7 5.1 to 5.6
1997D 39.6 $271,050 4.5 4.6 to 5.3
1998D 39.6 $278,450 4.4 4.3 to 4.6
1999D 39.6% $283,150 4.8 4.0 to 4.4
2000D 39.6% $288,350 4.1 3.8 to 4.1
2001R 39.1% $297,350 1.1 4.2 to 5.7
2002R 38.6% $307,050 1.8 5.7 to 6.0
2003R 35% $311,950 2.5 5.7 to 6.3
2004R 35% $319,100 3.5 5.4 to 5.7
2005R 35% $326,450 3.1 4.9 to 5.4
2006R 35% $336,550 2.7 4.4 to 4.8
2007R 35% $349,700 1.9 4.4 to 5.0
2008R 35% $357,700 -0.3 4.9 to 7.3
2009D 35% $372,950 -1.9 7.8 to 10.0

[bigmack]

If you look at the table honestly, you will see that the largest growth in GDP and the lowest rates of unemployment consistently coincide with the period of higher top tax rates.
AGain, this rube runs numbers through certain subjects like a Peterbilt truck through a playground but yet scrutinizes minutia of details on subjects he needs to wiggle out of.

Raise your hand if you're stupid enough to buy tax rates correlate with national GDP.

There's two hands. Mosty & Goren.

Says it all.

[lsbets]

AGain, this rube runs numbers through certain subjects like a Peterbilt truck through a playground but yet scrutinizes minutia of details on subjects he needs to wiggle out of.

Raise your hand if you're stupid enough to buy tax rates correlate with national GDP.

There's two hands. Mosty & Goren.

Says it all.

They are too simple minded to look at the reasons behind the boom periods such as the postwar boom. It would require too much thought and would blow mosty's high taxes are good for the economy theory to hell. Of course if you earn your living and retirement off the backs of the taxpayers than high taxes are great.

[HUSKER55]

it would seem to me that if a rich person had to pay $100k or they could hire an extra person and only pay $30k, our economy would be better off.

Can't spend your money twice. Either hire the person or pay unemployment or welfare and etc.

Judging from the waistline of our government they can all go on a diet.

[mostpost]

They are too simple minded to look at the reasons behind the boom periods such as the postwar boom. It would require too much thought and would blow mosty's high taxes are good for the economy theory to hell. Of course if you earn your living and retirement off the backs of the taxpayers than high taxes are great.

There was a boom during the post war period. There were also high taxes. According to your theory there can not be a boom if taxes are high. Shoots your theory all to hell.

Also how does that explain the pre WWII years (1934 t0 1940) when taxes were 63 to 79% and growth averaged 7.35% a year.

[mostpost]

Raise your hand if you're stupid enough to buy tax rates correlate with national GDP

In other words Reagan was wrong when he tried to correlate taxes with growth.
Well, he was wrong when he said it was lower taxes, but correct that proper taxes are a stimulant.

Again the proof is right there in black and white. Of course I realize that making the connection is difficult for some.

[bigmack]

Also how does that explain the pre WWII years (1934 t0 1940) when taxes were 63 to 79% and growth averaged 7.35% a year.
How ignorant are you, or do you think others are so stupid they don't see your little game? You've been told INNUMERABLY about the enforcement of those, years gone by, tax rates in the 70's-90's was something like 10%. And that's one element you continue to leave out.

Here's your last chance before you're thrown on a scrap heap of obtuse hacks & dishonest debaters. Address that issue once and for all instead of running around piling up numbers to support you hair-brained notions. If you avoid it again, it should say to anyone thinking about debating with you, YOU'RE A DISHONEST HACK.

[lsbets]

There was a boom during the post war period. There were also high taxes. According to your theory there can not be a boom if taxes are high. Shoots your theory all to hell.

Also how does that explain the pre WWII years (1934 t0 1940) when taxes were 63 to 79% and growth averaged 7.35% a year.

You think the boom was caused by high tax rates (which btw no one paid, but that has nothing to do with what caused the boom but high tax rates does not equal high taxes paid)? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously, you are way out of your league here. You don't even understand the basics.

[mostpost]

You think the boom was caused by high tax rates (which btw no one paid, but that has nothing to do with what caused the boom but high tax rates does not equal high taxes paid)? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously, you are way out of your league here. You don't even understand the basics.

Prove to me that no one paid the taxes in the 40's 50's 60's and 70's. Prove that deductions and exemptions were such that the actual rate paid was the same as or lower than today. I want to know what the deductions were, who got them and how it affected their rates.

If you are saying that there was lax enforcement prove that. A story in some right wing blog is not proof. I want stories of systemic fraud and charges brought, convictions or otherwise.

[mostpost]

Prove to me that no one paid the taxes in the 40's 50's 60's and 70's. Prove that deductions and exemptions were such that the actual rate paid was the same as or lower than today. I want to know what the deductions were, who got them and how it affected their rates.

If you are saying that there was lax enforcement prove that. A story in some right wing blog is not proof. I want stories of systemic fraud and charges brought, convictions or otherwise.


While you are trying to figure that out, perhaps you can explain the large increase in revenues during that period. From 1941, when the top rate went to 81% to 1964 when it dropped to 70% annual revenues increase twelvefold. Hardly seems possible if no one was paying taxes.

By contrast over a similar period of time (1982 to 2004) with much lower tax rates revenues only tripled.

[lsbets]

Prove to me that no one paid the taxes in the 40's 50's 60's and 70's. Prove that deductions and exemptions were such that the actual rate paid was the same as or lower than today. I want to know what the deductions were, who got them and how it affected their rates.

If you are saying that there was lax enforcement prove that. A story in some right wing blog is not proof. I want stories of systemic fraud and charges brought, convictions or otherwise.

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

A primer for you. Effective tax rates paid by the top 1% of earners:

1960 34%
1970 36.1%
1980 37.6%
1990 31.5%
2000 35.7%
2004 31.3%

A remarkably narrow range despite the wide fluctuation in actual rates.

[lsbets]

While you are trying to figure that out, perhaps you can explain the large increase in revenues during that period. From 1941, when the top rate went to 81% to 1964 when it dropped to 70% annual revenues increase twelvefold. Hardly seems possible if no one was paying taxes.

By contrast over a similar period of time (1982 to 2004) with much lower tax rates revenues only tripled.

Can you think of anything in that mind of yours unique about that period which influenced the economy far more than paper rates that were not paid? I'll give you a hint, there were two major things that happened. One ended in 1945 and one started in 1945-6. Think hard.

[mostpost]

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

A primer for you. Effective tax rates paid by the top 1% of earners:

1960 34%
1970 36.1%
1980 37.6%
1990 31.5%
2000 35.7%
2004 31.3%

A remarkably narrow range despite the wide fluctuation in actual rates.
Thank you for that link which I have not as yet read as I am leaving for choir practice in a few minutes. I will look at it.

It does occur to me that you may be unclear as to my argument. I do not think the economy improves because someone is paying 91% of their income in taxes. I think it improves because they are not. The question is why are they not. I know that sounds confusing but I will try to explain after doing some research, which may take a few days.

[mostpost]

Thank you for that link which I have not as yet read as I am leaving for choir practice in a few minutes. I will look at it.

It does occur to me that you may be unclear as to my argument. I do not think the economy improves because someone is paying 91% of their income in taxes. I think it improves because they are not. The question is why are they not. I know that sounds confusing but I will try to explain after doing some research, which may take a few days.

I will now explain the statement in bold. Or at least attempt to. In lsbets' post # 40 he states that the effective tax rate paid by the top bracket in 1960 was 34%. Yet the official rate for that bracket was 91%.

I take the "effective tax rate" to mean what a person pays after he has applied all deductions, credits, exemptions etc. All of this would obviously lead to a lower tax bill.

There are some deductions or exemptions which you get just for being you or for having children. But there are others that depend on you doing something.
For instance there was a tax credit in one of the stimulus bills that was given if you hired a certain number of new workers. Or if you expand your business in other ways.

As I understand it (and I would appreciate it if one of our tax experts would correct me if necessary-NJ you listening?) a deduction is subtracted from your earnings and the tax is figured on the new amount. Salary $20,000 deduction $4,000-tax calculated on $16,000. On the other hand a credit is applied directly to the tax owed. let's assume the tax on that $16,000 is 10%. Your tax liability would be $1,600. If you had a tax credit of $1000, your new liability would be $600.00.

If those assumptions are correct, then I think the reason high tax rates stimulated the economy are very clear. Tax payers, business people in particular, had to take advantage of deductions and credits in order to reduce their tax liability. So they would hire more employees, give some raises and expand their business. In this way they would receive tax credits that would reduce the taxes they paid. Perhaps they would drop to a lower bracket or several brackets lower. In the meantime, more people would be working and working for higher wages. More people and more money to buy what the businessman is selling.

Now someone is certain to come along a say, "Well why not just keep the government out of it and just have a tax rate of 34%. Then the businessman would still have all that money to reinvest in his business if he wants to." In those last four words lies the problem. "If he wants to." In the scenario in the paragraph above, the businessman must perform certain actions if he wishes to reduce his tax liability. Actions which benefit the nation as a whole. Leaving the choice to him only assures us of having another rich businessman.


Having said all this, I do think a 91% tax rate is excessive; especially starting at $400,000. I do think a 50% rate at $1,000,000 and 60% over $5,000,000 is reasonable. Again there should be credits for actions which benefit the country and the economy.

[bigmack]

These situations of Mostie flailing at yet another subject he has little to no knowledge of are painful to watch. Guy should know his limitations.

In related news, the Postal Union is up in arms as they're being asked to contribute an additional, get ready, 1.5% towards their retirement fund over the next, get ready, 3 years!

As shown in the article, tax breaks at the expense & back of public servants.

That's right. Public servants

To all of you postal servants, thank you for your service.

Won't you encourage Mosty & his comrades for higher taxes? They'll put the money to good use. :rolleyes:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/CongressRefusestoTaxtheRichButPostalFederalWorkers MustPayPostalEmployeeNetwork.png

[badcompany]

These situations of Mostie flailing at yet another subject he has little to no knowledge of are painful to watch. Guy should know his limitations.



Actually, what Mostie is putting forth is a fairly common leftist argument which subscribes to the notion that wages can be increased by government fiat.

It goes something like this:

Businesses are loath to pay taxes. So, rather than give profits to the government, business will choose to give their employees pay raises.

Like most interventionist arguments, it sounds good in theory but fails in practice for a couple of reasons:

First, whether it be through taxation or increase labor costs, the decreased profits will make capital accumulation take longer and expansion more difficult.

Mostpost solves this problem by double counting. In his scarcity-free world everyone gets a pay raise and the company can still expand at will.

Second, the increased nominal wages paid to employees without a corresponding increase in productivity, above cost, creates a condition where there are more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. So, prices eventually rise to the new equilibrium and real wages stay the same. Instead of $4 for a $4 loaf of bread, the employee has $5 for a $5 loaf of bread.

When push comes to shove, it still comes down to who is better suited to allocate capital: politicians and bureaucrats or entreprenuers.

[ArlJim78]

Actually, what Mostie is putting forth is a fairly common leftist argument which subscribes to the notion that wages can be increased by government fiat.

It goes something like this:

Businesses are loath to pay taxes. So, rather than give profits to the government, business will choose to give their employees pay raises.

Like most interventionist arguments, it sounds good in theory but fails in practice for a couple of reasons:

First, whether it be through taxation or increase labor costs, the decreased profits will make capital accumulation take longer and expansion more difficult.

Mostpost solves this problem by double counting. In his scarcity-free world everyone gets a pay raise and the company can still expand at will.

Second, the increased nominal wages paid to employees without a corresponding increase in productivity, above cost, creates a condition where there are more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. So, prices eventually rise to the new equilibrium and real wages stay the same. Instead of $4 for a $4 loaf of bread, the employee has $5 for a $5 loaf of bread.

When push comes to shove, it still comes down to who is better suited to allocate capital: politicians and bureaucrats or entreprenuers.
exactly, and what we know from human nature is that people risking their own capital make much better decisions than those who are basically just playing around with other peoples money.

[lsbets]

If those assumptions are correct, then I think the reason high tax rates stimulated the economy are very clear. Tax payers, business people in particular, had to take advantage of deductions and credits in order to reduce their tax liability. So they would hire more employees, give some raises and expand their business. In this way they would receive tax credits that would reduce the taxes they paid. Perhaps they would drop to a lower bracket or several brackets lower. In the meantime, more people would be working and working for higher wages. More people and more money to buy what the businessman is selling.






That is central planning, the idea that bureaucrats can better decide how money should be spent than the people who have the money. While the government can absolutely influence the economy through the tax code, it is a highly inefficient means of allocating capital and distorts the economy in unhealthy and unsustainable ways.

Another thing about rates. After Kennedy cut the top rates, the number of millionaires magically grew almost overnight. Why? Less incentive to hide income (a lesson he probably learned from his Dad). Aside from distorting the economy, the high tax rates gave people a large incentive to hide income because the risk/reward ratio was so high. That's something that always happens. For example, look at cigarette taxes. 15 years ago there was only a small black market for cigarettes. Now that cigarette taxes have grown to such a high level, the market for black market cigs has grown exponentially. Another example of the unintended consequences of government action.

[mostpost]

Actually, what Mostie is putting forth is a fairly common leftist argument which subscribes to the notion that wages can be increased by government fiat.

It goes something like this:

Businesses are loath to pay taxes. So, rather than give profits to the government, business will choose to give their employees pay raises.

Like most interventionist arguments, it sounds good in theory but fails in practice for a couple of reasons:

First, whether it be through taxation or increase labor costs, the decreased profits will make capital accumulation take longer and expansion more difficult.

Mostpost solves this problem by double counting. In his scarcity-free world everyone gets a pay raise and the company can still expand at will.
Your affection for supply side economics is touching. Too bad it is wrong. Demand propels the market place. Businesses don't produce goods until the know they cancel them. There can only be demand if more workers are working for higher wages. As far as capital accumulation; that is effective only if the businessman uses it for expansion. If he puts it in the bank it is useless to the economy as a whole.

Second, the increased nominal wages paid to employees without a corresponding increase in productivity, above cost, creates a condition where there are more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. So, prices eventually rise to the new equilibrium and real wages stay the same. Instead of $4 for a $4 loaf of bread, the employee has $5 for a $5 loaf of bread.

That theory makes sense. So let's compare the two periods. That is the 50's, 60's and 70's when taxes were high. (70 to 91%) and the 80's, 90's and 00's when taxes were low. (28 to 50%)

In the earlier period productivity increased at an annual average rate of 2.45%.
In the latter period productivity rose at a 1.75% rate. 2.45 is bigger than 1.75. I think.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Then we should consider how wages increased in each of these periods.
According to the chart found here:
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2008/05/04/average-income-in-the-united-states-1913-2006/
average wages were about
$20,000 in 1950.
$40,000 in 1980 and
$51,000 in 2010.
To summarize during the period of higher taxation, wages doubled and there was a corresponding raise in productivity. During the latter period of lower taxes there was only a 50% improvement in wages and a lower increase in productivity.






When push comes to shove, it still comes down to who is better suited to allocate capital: politicians and bureaucrats or entreprenuers.

And the answer is; all of them, none of them, all of the above. Each has a role to play and none of them, by himself has all the answers.

[mostpost]

Another thing about rates. After Kennedy cut the top rates, the number of millionaires magically grew almost overnight.
You think that the criteria for judging the strength of an economy is the number of millionaires that are created. I think it is fine to have millionaires, but the real strength of an economy is found in the number and prosperity of the middle class and in the absence (as much as possible) of a poor class.

[lsbets]

You think that the criteria for judging the strength of an economy is the number of millionaires that are created. I think it is fine to have millionaires, but the real strength of an economy is found in the number and prosperity of the middle class and in the absence (as much as possible) of a poor class.

That is not what I said. Don't be like Boxcar and put incorrect assumptions on everything you read. I said the incentive to hide income was reduced and not worth the risk.

Here is the sentence that followed what you quoted which completes the thought:

Why? Less incentive to hide income


Back to another question I asked a while back - can you tell me the two factors that caused the post 1945 boom that were so powerful the economy would have boomed no matter what the tax policy was?

[mostpost]

So what have we learned so far? We have learned that during periods of high taxation-as compared to periods of lower taxation-GDP grows at a higher percentage; unemployment is lower on average; wages grow at 4X the rate; and productivity increases at .7 of a percent faster on an annual basis.

The argument is made from the other side.that higher taxes inhibit growth.
Then the argument is made that the prosperity of the 40's and 50's was due to WWII and the post war boom. But according to the higher taxes inhibit growth theory, the post war boom could not have occurred. If you are going to say the boom would have been bigger with lower taxes, you are going to have to provide some strong proof. I doubt you can.

[lsbets]

So what have we learned so far? We have learned that during periods of high taxation-as compared to periods of lower taxation-GDP grows at a higher percentage; unemployment is lower on average; wages grow at 4X the rate; and productivity increases at .7 of a percent faster on an annual basis.

The argument is made from the other side.that higher taxes inhibit growth.
Then the argument is made that the prosperity of the 40's and 50's was due to WWII and the post war boom. But according to the higher taxes inhibit growth theory, the post war boom could not have occurred. If you are going to say the boom would have been bigger with lower taxes, you are going to have to provide some strong proof. I doubt you can.

Do you live on another planet?

I showed you definitive proof that even though rates were much higher, effective tax rates (that which is paid) have stayed in a remarkably narrow range over the past 70 years.

Yet you still continue to live in a fantasy land that higher rates = higher taxes paid = economic growth.

The facts are placed in front of you (something you claim to love) and you turn your head and ignore them because they blow your argument to hell.

If you understood the strength of the factors which drove our economic growth post 1945 you would stop embarrassing yourself.

[mostpost]

That is not what I said. Don't be like Boxcar and put incorrect assumptions on everything you read. I said the incentive to hide income was reduced and not worth the risk.
After rereading your post, you are correct. A misinterpretation on my part. Sorry!

Here is the sentence that followed what you quoted which completes the thought:

Why? Less incentive to hide income


Back to another question I asked a while back - can you tell me the two factors that caused the post 1945 boom that were so powerful the economy would have boomed no matter what the tax policy was?
I would think the two main factors would be:
One; the need to return to a peace time economy and begin producing all the goods that were sidetracked while supplying for the war. i.e. cars, household goods, clothing, housing.
two; the GI bill which provided housing assistance and education assistance which allowed the returning GIs to get better jobs and buy homes-among other things.

[lsbets]

I would think the two main factors would be:
One; the need to return to a peace time economy and begin producing all the goods that were sidetracked while supplying for the war. i.e. cars, household goods, clothing, housing.
two; the GI bill which provided housing assistance and education assistance which allowed the returning GIs to get better jobs and buy homes-among other things.

Incorrect.

Reason one - we were the only economy in the world left standing. One American steel company produced more steel than any individual country did. The rest of the world needed to rebuild and there was only one place they could get what they needed to do so - here. We had pent up demand at home and worldwide demand that had no place to shop other than the U.S. Our economy would have boomed no matter what.

Then add in reason number two:

Demographics - the single most powerful and often overlooked factor that influences economic growth.

The impact of the baby boom might have had as much of an impact as us being the only economy standing. Nothing generates consumer demand and spending like major life events, and the biggest major life event there is is the birth of a child. From housing to shelter and food and consumer goods (with advances in technology) the amount of economic activity generated by the demographics of the baby boom was tremendous, and has been the single greatest driving force in our economy ever since, and will remain that way as the baby boomers grow old and eventually die. What helped fuel the boom is going to present tremendous challenges which can bring it all crashing down.

[mostpost]

Do you live on another planet?

I showed you definitive proof that even though rates were much higher, effective tax rates (that which is paid) have stayed in a remarkably narrow range over the past 70 years.

Yet you still continue to live in a fantasy land that higher rates = higher taxes paid = economic growth.

The facts are placed in front of you (something you claim to love) and you turn your head and ignore them because they blow your argument to hell.

If you understood the strength of the factors which drove our economic growth post 1945 you would stop embarrassing yourself.

And I explained to you that the higher rates combined with the incentives to lower those those rates are what created the prosperity.
Yes I understand that there were factors during the war and post war that contributed greatly to the boom. My contention is that the higher tax rates enhanced the boom to a greater extent than would have the lower rates currently in effect.

Also your theory ignores growth rate prior to WWII. From 1933 to 1940 GDP increased at an annual rate of 7.125%. Taxes were 63 to 79%. Compare that with the eight years from 1985 to 1992, when rates were 50 to 28 to 31%. GDP growth rate was 2.95.

World War two itself was one period where you could reasonably say the tax code played little or no part in how the economy did. Except that the higher rates were necessary to pay for the war effort.

[badcompany]

Reading this debate, the glaring difference between the two is that LS applies context to his arguments; whereas, Mostpost just cherry picks stats and uses Post Hoc Reasoning to draw his conclusion.

Now whose style is consistent with someone trying to bolster a weak argument?

[lsbets]

Reading this debate, the glaring difference between the two is that LS applies context to his arguments; whereas, Mostpost just cherry picks stats and uses Post Hoc Reasoning to draw his conclusion.

Now whose style is consistent with someone trying to bolster a weak argument?

It is impossible to look at economics without looking at what else is going on that influences growth.

Take the late 90s. Yes, capital gains rates were cut after 1994, but is that the reason the economy boomed in the late 90s?

No.

Did it help?

Probably, but the growth was going to happen anyway.

The economy boomed because of tech spending. Why did we have so much tech spending at the end of the 90s? There was a general panic about Y2K and every company in the world spent like mad to upgrade their technology infrastructure before the world came crashing down. Spending was moved forward from 2000, 2001, and 2002. That is also why the economy (I'm not talking the Nasdaq bubble) was so weak in the following years. Companies were not investing in technology equipment. They had moved that spending up to 1999. Y2K caused one great year followed by several shitty years.

Not applying context to this is like a poker player only looking at his cards and not paying attention to the dynamics of the board and the action around the table. Even if that player gets lucky once in a while, they really have no idea what is going on.

[mostpost]

Reading this debate, the glaring difference between the two is that LS applies context to his arguments; whereas, Mostpost just cherry picks stats and uses Post Hoc Reasoning to draw his conclusion.

Now whose style is consistent with someone trying to bolster a weak argument?
That is false. I compared the overall stats from the era of high taxes and the era of lower taxes and proved that the economy did better in the former instance. lsbets cherry picked the WWII and post war era and claimed that they were responsible for growth during that era.

What happens if you compare all years with taxes below 40%-that would be 1987 to 2009- to years with rates 63% or above. Records that I have start in 1930 but I started in 1933. 1932 would have hurt me, but 1931 and 1930 would have negatively affected your numbers. So I think that is a wash.
I did not include the war years. I did not include 1946 through 1962. Most think that the major part of the postwar boom was over in 1952. I gave it an additional ten years.

Results:
For the high tax years-1933 to 1940 and 1963 to 1981-GDP grew at an average rate of 4.338% per year.
For the low tax years-1987 to 2009- GDP grew at an average rate of 2.726%

The years between 1982 and 1986 had a 50% tax rate, which you consider high and I consider low.

Just give up. Every stat favors my argument.

[lsbets]

Just give up. Every stat favors my argument.

You are simply delusional if you believe that. You remind me of a brainwashed cult member. You are incapable of thinking objectively.

Your argument about the roaring 30s is pretty easy to pick apart, but there's really no point. The truth is irrelevant to you in this case.

[bigmack]

Just give up. Every stat favors my argument.
Ya see why engaging with the delusional thinking of this nut is an exercise in futility & idiocy? He starts with a premise he longs to believe and then scurries off in search of numbers to back him up.

OH LOOK, higher tax years had some growth. Yippee!

It's like debating with a kindergarten kid.

Somebody ax him if he EVER took an Econ class in his life.

[elysiantraveller]

That is false. I compared the overall stats from the era of high taxes and the era of lower taxes and proved that the economy did better in the former instance. lsbets cherry picked the WWII and post war era and claimed that they were responsible for growth during that era.

What happens if you compare all years with taxes below 40%-that would be 1987 to 2009- to years with rates 63% or above. Records that I have start in 1930 but I started in 1933. 1932 would have hurt me, but 1931 and 1930 would have negatively affected your numbers. So I think that is a wash.
I did not include the war years. I did not include 1946 through 1962. Most think that the major part of the postwar boom was over in 1952. I gave it an additional ten years.

Results:
For the high tax years-1933 to 1940 and 1963 to 1981-GDP grew at an average rate of 4.338% per year.
For the low tax years-1987 to 2009- GDP grew at an average rate of 2.726%

The years between 1982 and 1986 had a 50% tax rate, which you consider high and I consider low.

Just give up. Every stat favors my argument.

I think you are intentionally missing the point. LS is showing you the difference between declared and effective rates. You are saying high tax rates lead to growth (a argument so dumb its laughable) and he is showing people didn't those rates nullifying your premise.

[badcompany]

I think you are intentionally missing the point. LS is showing you the difference between declared and effective rates. You are saying high tax rates lead to growth (a argument so dumb its laughable) and he is showing people didn't those rates nullifying your premise.

To make absurd arguments you have to get creative with stats. He tends to do so by using percentage increases during abnormal time periods like the one directly following the stock market crash of the late 20s early 30s.



Also your theory ignores growth rate prior to WWII. From 1933 to 1940 GDP increased at an annual rate of 7.125%. Taxes were 63 to 79%. Compare that with the eight years from 1985 to 1992, when rates were 50 to 28 to 31%. GDP growth rate was 2.95.

Here's how that technique can paint a false picture. During the recent crisis Citigroup had its stock price go from 50 down to 1 and then back up to 4.

From that you can glean that Citigroup had its best year right after the crash because it had a 300% rise, while conveniently ignoring the previous 98% drop.

What makes arguments like Mostpost's so despicible is that they're really trying to increase the size and scope of government under guise to trying to help business.

[mostpost]

Ya see why engaging with the delusional thinking of this nut is an exercise in futility & idiocy? He starts with a premise he longs to believe and then scurries off in search of numbers to back him up.

OH LOOK, higher tax years had some growth. Yippee!
No Doofus! Higher tax years consistently had better growth than lower tax years. That is a fact regardless of what other factors are involved.

It's like debating with a kindergarten kid.

Somebody ax him if he EVER took an Econ class in his life.
An intelligent person does not say Ax when he means ask. The answer to your question is that I have not, but I can tell when the economy is good and when it is bad. And I can tell that the Bush tax cuts have not given us anything close to a good economy.

[bigmack]

An intelligent person does not say Ax when he means ask. The answer to your question is that I have not, but I can tell when the economy is good and when it is bad. And I can tell that the Bush tax cuts have not given us anything close to a good economy.
You got a problem with the way I say ask? Try running around North Riverside telling some people you object to the way they say it. See what happens.

CBO is one of your favorite sources. Wrap your diminutive brain around today's noose.

That goes for NJSmelleth, as well.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/TheCBOwarningaboutourdirefiscalfutureisrealsowhatm ustbedoneFoxNews.png
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/23/cbo-warning-about-our-dire-fiscal-future-is-real-so-what-must-be-done/

Another thread annihilated by your "Give me taxes. Give me lots of taxes" droning diatribe.

[mostpost]

I think you are intentionally missing the point. LS is showing you the difference between declared and effective rates. You are saying high tax rates lead to growth (a argument so dumb its laughable) and he is showing people didn't those rates nullifying your premise.
You must think I am terminally stupid. I assure you I am far from stupid. I understand that the effective tax rate can be far different from the top tax rate. I also understand that top rate is not paid on the entire income, but only on that amount above the threshold.

So, if you earned $2,000,000 in 1950, you would not pay $1,820,000 in taxes. You would pay $1,229,969. Instead of 91% you would pay 61%. That is more than halfway to the effective rate posted by lsbets (34%). It is getting from that 61% to 34% that helps the economy. In order to earn the credits, deductions or whatever the businessman is required to take certain steps which aid not just him, but the country as a whole.

i know you righties don't think the government should manage the economy. I don't think a single businessman or group of businessmen can manage it either. And that myth called the free market is not up to the task either.

[lsbets]

You must think I am terminally stupid.

If we were to only look at the arguments you have made in this thread, I could understand why people would come to that conclusion.

[Greyfox]

He improved relations with Middle East countries by appointing special envoys. http://1.usa.gov/tiGAGe



Ordered and oversaw the Navy SEALS operation that killed Osama bin Laden. http://bit.ly/jChpgw .

So Obama improved relations in the Middle East ,eh.
He oversaw the killing of Osama bin laden, eh.

Then why isn't Obama blasting Pakistan for this injustice?

The Doctor who helped the CIA obtain DNA samples of bin Laden has been sentenced to 33 years in prison for treason!

The U.S. funds Pakistan as an ally every year.
With this act, Pakistan has proven it is not an ally of the U.S.
Obama should cut off all funding today.
Yet he isn't saying bo peep about this man's imprisonment.

Story at:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/doctor-gets-33-years-in-jail-for-helping-catch-bin-laden-20120524-1z72u.html

Obama did nothing and said didly squat.
However, a Senate panel has cut Pakistan's funding by $33 Million - 1 M for every year that this Doctor is imprisoned for.

The Senate panel's decision is at:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1183552--jailing-of-osama-bin-laden-doctor-costs-pakistan-33m-in-u-s-aid

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
An intelligent person does not say Ax when he means ask

This could be a racist comment.
Arsineo Hall has frequently used the term "ax."
So do other well known Black people........are you saying this man is not intellignet? :lol: Or, was he just tired...... :lol: :lol: :lol:
aogWFrW1PyU

[mostpost]

This could be a racist comment.
Arsineo Hall has frequently used the term "ax."
So do other well known Black people........are you saying this man is not intellignet? :lol: Or, was he just tired...... :lol: :lol: :lol:
aogWFrW1PyU

I know that a lot of people say "ax" I don't like it. I also don't like it when people say "Intellignet." :rolleyes:

[bigmack]

I know that a lot of people say "ax" I don't like it.
You not only don't like it, you think those that do are unintelligent.

That don't fly in BigEd World where you reside.

http://lmliberty.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ed-schultz-idiot-stupid-300x292.jpg

[Tom]

Nice diversion.....trying to put your racist comments behind you.

You will see your comments and that video for ears to come.

I promise! :lol:

[badcompany]

You not only don't like it, you think those that do are unintelligent.

That don't fly in BigEd World where you reside.

http://lmliberty.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ed-schultz-idiot-stupid-300x292.jpg

Actually, it does. "Oppressed" people get a pass on bad behavior and on butchering the language. It's called "Moral Relativism."

If you think it sounds ridiculous, just remember that it's coming from people who believe high taxes lead to economic growth.:bang:

[Greyfox]

Obama was supposed to bring world wide respect from other International leaders.
It seems that it would be hard to name an international leader who respects him. Sarkozy didn't. Putin doesn't. Harper doesn't. Ditto Netanyahu.

Now out of Italy and the sex scandal trial of Silvio Berlusconi comes the story
that guests at one of his orgies were entertained by a beautiful Dominican woman who impersonated Barack Obama.

Where's the respect that Obama would cultivate for America?

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/05/25/marysthell_polanco_berlusconi_obama_costume

[Tom]

Pakistan sentenced the guy who helped get Bin Laden to 33 years in prison!
No respect for Barry there - and now, how many others will be helping us with anything after Barry let him rot on the vine.
Just like Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs - disgusting cowardice.

[Greyfox]

Pakistan sentenced the guy who helped get Bin Laden to 33 years in prison!
No respect for Barry there - and now, how many others will be helping us with anything after Barry let him rot on the vine.
Just like Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs - disgusting cowardice.

Right. :ThmbUp: (Also see Post # 67 of this thread.)

[NJ Stinks]

Where's the respect that Obama would cultivate for America?



I haven't met even one conservative let alone anyone else over here in England who isn't rooting for Obama's re-election. In fact, people here think Republicans are preventing Obama from being as great as he could be.

For some reason right wingers in the USA are considered something akin to a whacko over here.

I'd like to say I wonder why I cannot tell a lie.

[bigmack]

I haven't met even one conservative let alone anyone else over here in England who isn't rooting for Obama's re-election. In fact, people here think Republicans are preventing Obama from being as great as he could be.
Who gives a rat's ass?

[Greyfox]

I haven't met even one conservative let alone anyone else over here in England who isn't rooting for Obama's re-election.

You've been in the wrong part of London interviewing the wrong type of Conservatives.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01178/arts-graphics-2007_1178070a.jpg

[badcompany]

I haven't met even one conservative let alone anyone else over here in England who isn't rooting for Obama's re-election. In fact, people here think Republicans are preventing Obama from being as great as he could be.

For some reason right wingers in the USA are considered something akin to a whacko over here.

I'd like to say I wonder why I cannot tell a lie.

Ask them why their country hasn't produced any innovative tech companies like Apple, Amazon or Ebay.

When they're stuck for an answer, you might want to suggest the reason is that the socialist anticapitalist mentality has destroyed their entreprenuerial spirit.

[NJ Stinks]

Ask them why their country hasn't produced any innovative tech companies like Apple, Amazon or Ebay.

When they're stuck for an answer, you might want to suggest the reason is that the socialist anticapitalist mentality has destroyed their entreprenuerial spirit.

Apple is great Chinese employer; Amazon hurts just about every retail shop in our country; and I don't know jack about Ebay.

[badcompany]

Apple is great Chinese employer; Amazon hurts just about every retail shop in our country; and I don't know jack about Ebay.

Like a good Leftist you conveniently leave the customer out of the equation. You know, the one who's always right.

How much customer satisfaction have Apple & Amazon created?

[bigmack]

Apple is great Chinese employer; Amazon hurts just about every retail shop in our country; and I don't know jack about Ebay.
You remain stunningly ill-informed. Amazon employs 50,000. Ebay: 16,000

Apple: 47,000 of their 70,000 are employed in the US.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/AppleToutsUSJobCreationwithClaimsof514000JobsTiedt oitsProductsMacRumors.png

[badcompany]

You remain stunningly ill-informed. Amazon employs 50,000. Ebay: 16,000

Apple: 47,000 of their 70,000 are employed in the US.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/AppleToutsUSJobCreationwithClaimsof514000JobsTiedt oitsProductsMacRumors.png

It speaks volumes about the anti-capitalist mentality that a company like Apple, which has enriched the quality of many millions of people's lives has to defend itself from these Pinkos.

[bigmack]

It speaks volumes about the anti-capitalist mentality that a company like Apple, which has enriched the quality of many millions of people's lives has to defend itself from these Pinkos.
You are aware that you're engaged in a dialogue with a retired employee of the insulated world of the Internal Revenue Soivice, who is currently vacationing in England, right?

He doesn't like to hurt MaPa business & he favors every tax known to man, with the exception of NJ prop taxes. Those, he feels, are outlandish.

[badcompany]

You are aware that you're engaged in a dialogue with a retired employee of the insulated world of the Internal Revenue Soivice, who is currently vacationing in England, right?

He doesn't like to hurt MaPa business & he favors every tax known to man, with the exception of NJ prop taxes. Those, he feels, are outlandish.

:lol:

I can only imagine the type of propaganda guys like NJ Stinks & Mostpost had been fed throughout their working lives.

One piece that jumped out at me was Mostie's contention that Unions raise everyone's wages because non-union employers have to compete with unions.

The fly in the ointment of this theory is that the pesky demand curve gets in the way. When unions drive up wages, the demand for labor in unionized sectors decreases which creates a greater supply of labor in non-unionized sectors putting DOWNWARD pressure on wages.

[bigmack]

I can only imagine the type of propaganda guys like NJ Stinks & Mostpost had been fed throughout their working lives.
I read recently, 40% of all union participation is in public unions. Like the ones those two, TAX EVERYONE & EVERYTHING, were members of.

Public pension deals cut with politicians whom they greased the palms of, for decades. Pensions we could never live up to. Now that we're all waking up to their shenanigans and asking for a bit more of an equitable relationship, they're crying foul. Take a look at Wisconsin. Which, by the way, they're about to lose. Nuts were out of their minds, going to Madison, Mikey Moore, the whole chimichanga. And now, the big stamp of defeat is about to press upon them.

NJ shuffles around acting all bighearted for MaPa business and then favors taxing the beJesus out of 'em. They don't seem to realize the interrelationships that exist out here in the real world.

[NJ Stinks]

It speaks volumes about the anti-capitalist mentality that a company like Apple, which has enriched the quality of many millions of people's lives has to defend itself from these Pinkos.

Just to be clear - I never bought an Apple product in my life. And I don't shop at Wal-mart either.

Maybe one day there will only be one store. Hopefully, I won't be around to see that day.

[NJ Stinks]

NJ shuffles around acting all bighearted for MaPa business and then favors taxing the beJesus out of 'em. They don't seem to realize the interrelationships that exist out here in the real world.

I don't act. Period.

[badcompany]

I read recently, 40% of all union participation is in public unions. Like the ones those two, TAX EVERYONE & EVERYTHING, were members of.


NJ shuffles around acting all bighearted for MaPa business and then favors taxing the beJesus out of 'em. They don't seem to realize the interrelationships that exist out here in the real world.

http://mycrains.crainsnewyork.com/blogs/greg-david-on-ny/2010/06/supermarket-unions-living-wage-contract/

The "Walmart vs Mom & Pop" battle is just a ruse. In fact, certain types of small businesses want to be near Walmart because of the traffic.

This is the real story:

___________
Supermarket union’s living wage contract

June 30, 2010 | 7:21 am by Greg David

Read more: http://mycrains.crainsnewyork.com/blogs/greg-david-on-ny/2010/06/supermarket-unions-living-wage-contract/#ixzz1vwj9IdzM
There’s a reason the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500 doesn’t want too much attention paid to this contract. Full time workers start at $12 an hour and part timers at $9. The full time starting pay barely exceeds the level required in proposed living wage bills being pushed in the City Council. Part timers are not paid a living wage. Any living wage law will cover part timers.

Meanwhile, the average wage for full-time hourly workers at Walmart in New York State is $12.16 per hour with additional performance-based bonuses. The company has made it clear it pays somewhat more in the New York suburbs and would offer even higher rates if it opens a store in the city itself.
___________

Meanwhile, bought off pols in NYC are always going on about Walmart's "slave wages."

NJ Stinks,
Even though you've been savaged in this thread, you can console yourself with bragging rights from the Devils' win. It was a good series. Congrats.

[NJ Stinks]

The "Walmart vs Mom & Pop" battle is just a ruse. In fact, certain types of small businesses want to be near Walmart because of the traffic.

This is the real story:



The real story is that if you believe the above, you probably still believe in Santa Claus too.

[Tom]

The real story is that if you believe the above, you probably still believe in Santa Claus too.



I believe in all the jobs WM pays for. Not only store employees, but truckers to deliver product, places to buy product from, low-prices on food that help many families support not only their own kids, but someone else's kids who were bred for welfare bonuses and left for others to support.

[badcompany]

The "Walmart vs Mom & Pop" battle is just a ruse. In fact, certain types of small businesses want to be near Walmart because of the traffic.



The real story is that if you believe the above, you probably still believe in Santa Claus too.

Since you're a horseplayer from Jersey, I'll assume you've been to Saratoga.

There used to be an Army/Navy store on the North end of Broadway. Over the years, as a customer, I had become friendly with the owner. His merch was pretty high end for the genre: $10-15 a pair hiking socks, $100-150 a pair work boots etc.

A few years ago, he made a decision to move the store a couple miles northeast to a shopping area in Wilton, NY. When I asked him why he was making the move, he said it was because of the foot and car traffic there.

Similarly, Hattie's, the legendary fried chicken joint in 'Toga, recently opened a fast food version of the restaurant, which is also located in Wilton, just a few stores down from the Army/Navy store. The owner, "Chef Jasper" with whom I'm also friendly, cited the traffic as the reason he picked that spot.

Where, exactly, are these two stores currently located? About a block away from the Walmart!

Feel free not to take my word for it and go there yourself.

Yes, NJ, there is a Santa Claus.

[badcompany]

I believe in all the jobs WM pays for. Not only store employees, but truckers to deliver product, places to buy product from, low-prices on food that help many families support not only their own kids, but someone else's kids who were bred for welfare bonuses and left for others to support.

Walmart certainly has kept more people off public assistance than any company in the history of the world; yet, it's the bane of the left which allegedly is all about helping the little guy.

[Greyfox]

I believe in all the jobs WM pays for. Not only store employees, but truckers to deliver product, places to buy product from, low-prices on food that help many families support not only their own kids, but someone else's kids who were bred for welfare bonuses and left for others to support.

Agreed. Besides that how else would China continue to grow?

[JustRalph]

I used to know a guy that ran a hardware store in the suburb I was a cop. His grandfather started the business in the thirties. We would attend many events including gatherings in my home, we had many friends in common. We were never really close, but we often talked shop about his business. He took the police test a few times and failed to get hired ( i was on the hiring board)

He told the hiring board he wanted to be a police officer because eventually Walmart would put him out of business. He freely admitted to gouging customers with huge markups. He told us that Walmart was able to get by with 2-3% markup on some items. He had nothing in the store that wasnt marked up less than thirty percent. He said it was worth it for personal service. But he figured he would lose in the end. He was right.

The bottom line, price is the overall factor in 90% of transactions. Those friendly local shops werent always altruistic businessmen as portrayed by the left. Sometimes they were greedy bastards taking advantage of their neighbors. You know, just like Walmart..........

[Tom]

Agreed. Besides that how else would China continue to grow?

If Walmart stopped buying from China, they would need money and foreclose on us.

Walmart, Apple, Amazon......do you lefties really think live would better in the USA without them? Low prices, unlimited selections, time utility.......get the hell out of 1952.

[badcompany]

If Walmart stopped buying from China, they would need money and foreclose on us.

Walmart, Apple, Amazon......do you lefties really think live would better in the USA without them? Low prices, unlimited selections, time utility.......get the hell out of 1952.

For "progressives," they sure are anti-progress. These guys would've been against the refridgerator because of what it would do to the companies that delivered blocks of ice to homes.

Rather than fear a growing middle class in China, it should be welcomed as an huge opportunity for American business to expand its customer base.

[Tom]

For "progressives," they sure are anti-progress. These guys would've been against the refridgerator because of what it would do to the companies that delivered blocks of ice to homes.

Rather than fear a growing middle class in China, it should be welcomed as an huge opportunity for American business to expand its customer base.

My grandfather delivered ice from a wagon after he retired for the railroad. He thought the electric "ice box" was the best thing since sliced bread. And he was around for that, too! :D

I guess libs are opposed to the highway system because it put road side diners out of business.

[Greyfox]

Ready.....Give me a "W."




X6nQ4-_rPj0&feature=related

[hcap]

I guess libs are opposed to the highway system because it put road side diners out of business.What you gentlemen consider "libs" today planned and built the highway system. Eisenhower and other republicans at the time were doing it for the commonwealth.

Probably called commies and socialists by the 1950's version of the regulars on the 1950's version of PA off-topic.

And ant-God by you know who.

[mostpost]

Since you're a horseplayer from Jersey, I'll assume you've been to Saratoga.

There used to be an Army/Navy store on the North end of Broadway. Over the years, as a customer, I had become friendly with the owner. His merch was pretty high end for the genre: $10-15 a pair hiking socks, $100-150 a pair work boots etc.

A few years ago, he made a decision to move the store a couple miles northeast to a shopping area in Wilton, NY. When I asked him why he was making the move, he said it was because of the foot and car traffic there.

Similarly, Hattie's, the legendary fried chicken joint in 'Toga, recently opened a fast food version of the restaurant, which is also located in Wilton, just a few stores down from the Army/Navy store. The owner, "Chef Jasper" with whom I'm also friendly, cited the traffic as the reason he picked that spot.

Where, exactly, are these two stores currently located? About a block away from the Walmart!

Feel free not to take my word for it and go there yourself.

Yes, NJ, there is a Santa Claus.
I can't believe you would cite those examples and think they were relevant. A high end merchandise store would have few customers in common with Wal-Mart. Neither would a fried chicken restaurant. It would make sense for a business like that to go to a high traffic area. Of course there a lot of high traffic areas that do not involve Wal-Mart.

The local businesses that are adversely affected by Wal-Mart are those that sell similar merchandise. There are a lot of those. There are only a few like the two you cited

[mostpost]

Walmart certainly has kept more people off public assistance than any company in the history of the world; yet, it's the bane of the left which allegedly is all about helping the little guy.

So this is what we now aspire to in this country. To keep people barely off public assistance. Anyone who works at WalMart is at the mercy of the manager for hours. Maybe if you are lucky and the store is busy and there are not too many other employees at the store, you can get some hours. It is very unlikely you will get 40. It is unlikely you will have a pension or decent health benefits.

Not only that but since WalMart has killed off the competition, you have few options to get another job. WalMart will never hire all the people put out of work when local businesses close and it will never pay them the same wages.

[bigmack]

Not only that but since WalMart has killed off the competition, you have few options to get another job. WalMart will never hire all the people put out of work when local businesses close and it will never pay them the same wages.
As a kid, when you went down to see the tree at Marshall Fields for Christmas, did you resent MF as well for being big enough to put other clothiers and shop owners out of business?

What about Sears? JCPenny? Montomery Ward?

Is there enough resentment in you for all of them?

[Tom]

I bet more people have jobs than pre-Walmart.

[badcompany]

I can't believe you would cite those examples and think they were relevant. A high end merchandise store would have few customers in common with Wal-Mart. Neither would a fried chicken restaurant.

Of course, you can't. It's a real world example, as opposed to your fantasy-based absurdities bolstered by cherry-picked statistics inappropriately applied.

And why would anyone, after shopping at Walmart, go get lunch, at, say, a fried-chicken joint?:bang:

What makes your anti-Walmart rap particularly ridiculous, is that it's coming from someone who worked for an organization that has an actual state-backed monopoly. Compete against the Post Office and you go to jail.

[badcompany]

So this is what we now aspire to in this country. To keep people barely off public assistance. Anyone who works at WalMart is at the mercy of the manager for hours. close and it will never pay them the same wages.

Get off your high horse. Not everyone is cut out to be an engineer or a systems programmer. For some, a job at Walmart is a good gig.

This thread has been very enlightening. From the lefties we've seen anti-progress sentiment, anti-China sentiment, and, elitist sentiment.

[ElKabong]

So this is what we now aspire to in this country. To keep people barely off public assistance.

says the guy that sorted mail till he retired! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[rastajenk]

Could any of the local coffee grinders do what they're doing right now if Starbucks hadn't nationalized the notion that what the country needs is a good $3.55 cuppa joe? The same thing was said about the Starbucks proliferation that is said about WalMart; funny thing, though, the exact opposite occurred.

[Greyfox]

says the guy that sorted mail till he retired! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Independent of a man's political leanings I find it repugnant that anyone would cast aspersions against and laugh about what another did to put bread on the table for his family in an honest job. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

[ArlJim78]

I second that. We shouldn't denigrate people simply based on where they work. that goes for anyone who does an honest days work whether it is at Walmart, on Wall street or the post office.

[Tom]

I agree - mostie gives us plenty other stuff to throw in his face every day.
Stick to what he gifts to us! :rolleyes::D

[Steve R]

These are his real first-term accomplishments:

Despite campaign promises to the contrary, Guantanamo Bay not been closed and there are at least 170 men still imprisoned there — 89 of whom have been cleared for release, and 46 whom the Justice Department has admitted they lack evidence to convict.

He approved a four year extension of the Patriot Act which means four more years of seizure of records without consent or knowledge and secret surveillance without warrants. Wiretaps increased 34% in the first year of his presidency.

Although championing the cause of whistleblowers during his campaign, the Obama's administration has prosecuted six whistle-blowers with the Espionage Act, more than all other administrations in history. Cases include: PFC Bradley Manning, who leaked confidential information exposing war crimes by U.S. government officials; John Kiriakou, a CIA agent who exposed the CIA torture program as a matter of official agency policy; Thomas Drake, former senior executive of the NSA, for exposing waste, fraud and abuse in a government program intended to analyze data carried on communications networks like the internet (the federal judge actually chastised the Department of Justice lawyers for pursuing the issue and the charges were dropped); Morris Davis, researcher at the Library of Congress for writing a critical op-ed for the Wall Street Journal and a letter to the editor at the Washington Post on double standards at the Guantanamo prison; Federal Air Marshal Robert MacLean, for reporting that the TSA was planning to cut costs by removing air marshals from flights despite a heightened intelligence warning of hijackings; and four employees of the Air Force Mortuary in Dover, Delaware, for attempting to address shortcomings at the facility, which handles the remains of all American service members who die overseas.

He signed the National Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 which, for the first time in over 200 years, authorizes the military to carry out domestic policing. It allows for the indefinite detention without trial (elimination of habeas corpus) of any person, including American citizens, until the end of the hostilities against what he unilaterally defines as terrorists, foreign or domestic.

His administration continues to require computer makers and large websites to provide access for domestic surveillance purposes.

He is allocating billions of dollars for the militarization of local police forces by funding the purchase of assault rifles, body armor, armored vehicles and even drones. A review of records from 41 states by the Center for Investigative Reporting shows police departments around the U.S. have transformed into small army-like forces. For example, the police department of Fargo, North Dakota, purchased a new $256,643 armored truck, complete with a rotating turret. Fargo has averaged one homicide per 100,000 residents per year since 1999.

He unilaterally claimed authority to conduct targeted killings of civilians, including American citizens, far from any battlefield without judicial review or public scrutiny. Defense Department counsel Jeh Johnson told Yale Law School in February 2012 that the president’s authority to kill enemy combatants is “without a geographic limitation” and that “U.S. citizens do not enjoy immunity” from extra-judicial killings. Nevertheless, the 5th Amendment is quite explicit in saying that no citizen should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. There are no exceptions listed or implied. Therefore, the assassination of Anwar Awlaki in Yemen, regardless of his political position, is a clear violation of the Constitution and grounds for Obama's impeachment.

He implemented a program of covert drone attacks against a sovereign nation, Pakistan, without constitutional or international authority. The Constitution limits the presidential use of war powers to those necessary for an immediate defence of the United States or those exercised pursuant to a valid congressional declaration of war. International law prohibits entering a sovereign country without its consent.

The Obama administration's threats of military action against Iran are illegal under the U.N. Charter to which the U.S. is a signatory. The Charter explicitly prohibits not just a military attack on another nation, but also the issuance of threats of such an attack. From Chapter II, paragraph 4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Documents recently obtained through the Freedom of Information Act on behalf of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund reveal direct involvement of the Obama White House, the Dept. of Homeland Security and the FBI in orchestrating and encouraging the Occupy Movement crackdowns around the U.S.

He issued an Executive Order for the Treasury Department to freeze U.S. assets of anyone who “obstructs” implementation of the administration-backed political transition in Yemen and also targets U.S. citizens who engage in activity deemed to threaten Yemen’s political stability. The order focuses on political activities and is unrelated to terrorism. Never mind that the new U.S. puppet president was the only candidate in Yemen's "democratic" election; the order is a blatant attack on Americans’ 1st Amendment rights and Yemenis’ rights to self-determination.

------------------------------------------------------------------

“The major defining feature of the Obama administration on this issue is the eagerness with which it embraced the stunning evisceration of civil rights and liberties that was a hallmark of the Bush administration, and then deepened those outrageous programs,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, who is an attorney representing many Occupy protesters swept up in last fall’s mass arrests. “He has successfully counted on the acquiescent silence of the liberals.”

[Tom]

OMG....he's.....he's......BUSH! :eek::eek::eek:

[bigmack]

He has successfully counted on the acquiescent silence of the liberals.”[/I][/B]
Like, where's the peanut gallery who were out of their minds about waterboarding? This clown has a kill list.

Blowing up US citizens, including minors, like Trayvoon Martin. That's right, BO is like Georgie Boy Zimmerman. 'Cept Al Awlaki & his son never smashed BO's head on a sidewalk.

Kill list: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obamas-secret-kill-list-shows-president-final-word/story?id=16449862#.T8UwS9USlEg

Libs: Depending on who's in the OO, waterboarding is far worse than being blown to smithereens. :ThmbUp:

[mostpost]

These are his real first-term accomplishments:

Despite campaign promises to the contrary, Guantanamo Bay not been closed and there are at least 170 men still imprisoned there — 89 of whom have been cleared for release, and 46 whom the Justice Department has admitted they lack evidence to convict.
Guantanamo is open because the Republican House refuses to release funds to close it and refuses to allow and funds to be used to move prisoners to US civilian or military facilities. Here is what Obama said about this in his signing statement on the 2012 Defense Authorization Act:
Sections 1026–1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to
the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal
year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue
to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine
when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees,

He approved a four year extension of the Patriot Act which means four more years of seizure of records without consent or knowledge and secret surveillance without warrants. Wiretaps increased 34% in the first year of his presidency.
Don't act like Obama unilaterally extended the Patriot Act. It passed the Senate 72 to 23 and while I did not look it up, I am sure the vote in the House was even more one sided. If there was an increase in the number of wiretaps, I am sure (A) they were all legally authorized and (B) the increase was only because they are now reporting all wiretaps. This was not the case with the previous administration,

Although championing the cause of whistleblowers during his campaign, the Obama's administration has prosecuted six whistle-blowers with the Espionage Act, more than all other administrations in history. Cases include: PFC Bradley Manning, who leaked confidential information exposing war crimes by U.S. government officials; John Kiriakou, a CIA agent who exposed the CIA torture program as a matter of official agency policy; Thomas Drake, former senior executive of the NSA, for exposing waste, fraud and abuse in a government program intended to analyze data carried on communications networks like the internet (the federal judge actually chastised the Department of Justice lawyers for pursuing the issue and the charges were dropped); Morris Davis, researcher at the Library of Congress for writing a critical op-ed for the Wall Street Journal and a letter to the editor at the Washington Post on double standards at the Guantanamo prison; Federal Air Marshal Robert MacLean, for reporting that the TSA was planning to cut costs by removing air marshals from flights despite a heightened intelligence warning of hijackings; and four employees of the Air Force Mortuary in Dover, Delaware, for attempting to address shortcomings at the facility, which handles the remains of all American service members who die overseas.

Bradley Manning and John Kiriakou are accused of giving classified information to persons that were not authorized to receive that information. Are you suggesting that they should be allowed to do so without consequence

Charges against Thomas Drake were dropped after he agreed to plead guilty to the misdemeanor charge of willful retention of government documents.

I can find no kind of actions by the Obama administration against Morris Davis.

Robert McLean's warnings about understaffing at the US sky marshall force took place during the Bush Adminstration. The decision to fire him came from that office and was affirmed by the US Merit Protections Board. The President, Obama or other wise does not have the authority to overturn that.


He signed the National Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 which, for the first time in over 200 years, authorizes the military to carry out domestic policing. It allows for the indefinite detention without trial (elimination of habeas corpus) of any person, including American citizens, until the end of the hostilities against what he unilaterally defines as terrorists, foreign or domestic.

Here again is Obama's signing statement.
Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the
2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541
note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was
included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through
lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely
codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand
the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force."
Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or
authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the
United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." My
Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear
beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal
1 courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my
Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American
citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and
values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that
any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other
applicable law.



His administration continues to require computer makers and large websites to provide access for domestic surveillance purposes.

He is allocating billions of dollars for the militarization of local police forces by funding the purchase of assault rifles, body armor, armored vehicles and even drones. A review of records from 41 states by the Center for Investigative Reporting shows police departments around the U.S. have transformed into small army-like forces. For example, the police department of Fargo, North Dakota, purchased a new $256,643 armored truck, complete with a rotating turret. Fargo has averaged one homicide per 100,000 residents per year since 1999.

He unilaterally claimed authority to conduct targeted killings of civilians, including American citizens, far from any battlefield without judicial review or public scrutiny. Defense Department counsel Jeh Johnson told Yale Law School in February 2012 that the president’s authority to kill enemy combatants is “without a geographic limitation” and that “U.S. citizens do not enjoy immunity” from extra-judicial killings. Nevertheless, the 5th Amendment is quite explicit in saying that no citizen should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. There are no exceptions listed or implied. Therefore, the assassination of Anwar Awlaki in Yemen, regardless of his political position, is a clear violation of the Constitution and grounds for Obama's impeachment.

He implemented a program of covert drone attacks against a sovereign nation, Pakistan, without constitutional or international authority. The Constitution limits the presidential use of war powers to those necessary for an immediate defence of the United States or those exercised pursuant to a valid congressional declaration of war. International law prohibits entering a sovereign country without its consent.

The Obama administration's threats of military action against Iran are illegal under the U.N. Charter to which the U.S. is a signatory. The Charter explicitly prohibits not just a military attack on another nation, but also the issuance of threats of such an attack. From Chapter II, paragraph 4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Documents recently obtained through the Freedom of Information Act on behalf of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund reveal direct involvement of the Obama White House, the Dept. of Homeland Security and the FBI in orchestrating and encouraging the Occupy Movement crackdowns around the U.S.

He issued an Executive Order for the Treasury Department to freeze U.S. assets of anyone who “obstructs” implementation of the administration-backed political transition in Yemen and also targets U.S. citizens who engage in activity deemed to threaten Yemen’s political stability. The order focuses on political activities and is unrelated to terrorism. Never mind that the new U.S. puppet president was the only candidate in Yemen's "democratic" election; the order is a blatant attack on Americans’ 1st Amendment rights and Yemenis’ rights to self-determination.

------------------------------------------------------------------

“The major defining feature of the Obama administration on this issue is the eagerness with which it embraced the stunning evisceration of civil rights and liberties that was a hallmark of the Bush administration, and then deepened those outrageous programs,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, who is an attorney representing many Occupy protesters swept up in last fall’s mass arrests. “He has successfully counted on the acquiescent silence of the liberals.”[/B][/B]


I have responded to a few of the statements above in bold. I don't have time to get into the others which you obviously copied from some Anti Obama website without giving credit.

[Tom]

Who else had a kill list?

Arthur Shawcross
Jack the Ripper
The Zodiac
BTK


You get the picture....our president is a SERIAL KILLER.
And he has the GALL to criticize Syria - when he is no better at all.

[Greyfox]

Mostie said:
"Guantanamo is open because the Republican House refuses to release funds to close it and refuses to allow and funds to be used to move prisoners to US civilian or military facilities. Here is what Obama said about this in his signing statement on the 2012 Defense Authorization Act:"


Tripe. Why make up false excuses?

Obama had power for two year and did not do it. Take the rose colored glasses off.

[Greyfox]

I said earlier that Netanyahu, Harper, Putin, Sarkozy and other world leaders see Obama as a weak U.S. President.

In this week's news:

Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski recently labelled Obama's remarks on Poland as being
"ignorant and incompetent."

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House said President Barack Obama misspoke on Tuesday when he referred to a "Polish death camp" while honoring a Polish war hero.

The president's remark had drawn immediate complaints from Poles who said Obama should have called it a "German death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland," to distinguish the perpetrators from the location. Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski called it a matter of "ignorance and incompetence."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gFpSJq1kUq5nLnHxu5Nt0dYupYFg?docId=c07ecbb13 fc34340950bc75ee374c128

[PaceAdvantage]

Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski called it a matter of "ignorance and incompetence."See, the Polish ain't so dumb after all. They know what we've been saying about Obama all along...ignorant and incompetent.

I'm half-Polish, so I can say these things... :lol:

[bigmack]

See, the Polish ain't so dumb after all. They know what we've been saying about Obama all along...ignorant and incompetent.

I'm half-Polish, so I can say these things...
Proof, Poles are dunderheads. Go back to your own stinkin' country and that goes for all the other Poles around hair as well.

BWzU41YxFco#!

[Greyfox]

Here's another beaut from the Prez.

This week he told a group of Jewish leaders that he probably knows more about Judaism than any other American President.

The man's an ego maniac. What type of a fool would declare that?

Obama “stressed he probably knows about Judaism more than any other president, because he read about it.”"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-stressed-he-probably-knows-about-judaism-more-any-other-president_646293.html

[Tom]

The man's an ego maniac. What type of a fool would declare that?



The same fool who talks about his sons.
But doesn't have any. :D

[Greyfox]

Here is a list of accomplishments by the Obama administration:

.

Add this to your list of his accomplishments Mostie.

Obama has outspent the previous 5 Presidents.



President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents

By Elizabeth Flock (http://www.usnews.com/topics/author/elizabeth_flock)


June 1, 2012 RSS Feed (http://www.usnews.com/blogrss/washington-whispers.xml) Print (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/06/01/president-obama-has-outspent-last-five-presidents_print.html)
http://www.usnews.com/pubdbimages/image/31504/Federal_Spending425x283.jpg
President Obama has shelled out more in federal spending (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/06/01/president-obama-has-outspent-last-five-presidents#) than the five presidents that came before him.

More at link:

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/06/01/president-obama-has-outspent-last-five-presidents