1. #36
    hockey216
    hockey216's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-20-08
    Posts: 4,584
    Betpoints: 174

    Shaud you know that top 10% of the population pays 70% of the taxes? I understand the rich has to pay more, and i agree with it. But i think that 10% of the population paying 70% of the taxes is more than enough. You wan't them to pay more? How much more? you want 10% of the population to pay 95% of the taxes? What's your idea of fair?

  2. #37
    DwightShrute
    I don't believe you ... please continue
    DwightShrute's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 01-17-09
    Posts: 90,341
    Betpoints: 3908

    again I have to shake my head when you hear these guys advocating higher taxes with all the government waste. Stop wasting money first and then you will EARN the right to propose increasing taxes. Until the government shows it will spend YOUR money responsibly then you are a fool to support more taxes.

    Its like a hole in your bucket. Simply pouring more water into it ain't gonna fill it until you fix the hole. Fix the ******* hole first. It's not rocket science.

  3. #38
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,588

    Quote Originally Posted by DwightShrute View Post

    Pauly I was only referring to what you said

    Fact is you don't know is all I was saying. You might be right. Who knows. lets move on
    My point is,there is no such thing as government for the people,the government is for the interest of those who are pre-apointed no matter the party,the 2 party system is only in place to divide the people so they can not become a threat to the system itself..............

  4. #39
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 701

    Your post is long, so rather than reply line by lline right now I will say this. There is no absolute proof that supply side economics works, it is far from proven, and even libertarian economics have come out and stated that it doesn't solve deficit problems. Milton Friedman himself had this to say about the Bush tax cuts(while he supported them because he supports supply side economic THEORY), "I do not know whether or not the tax cuts will or will not stimulate the economy in the short run." If supply side economics was more than just theory, why wouldn't Friedman be able to say with certainty that tax cuts would stimulate the economy?

    The theory behind tax cuts is the strategy of "starve the beast". That somehow if you cut the revenue stream government will be forced to cut spending. But we have seen year after year after year that that is not how it works. Hell, Bush was cutting taxes at the same time that he was created a new entitlement program, creating a new federal bureaucracy and starting two wars. Decreasing revenue was Friedman put starve the beast like this in his article applauding the Bush tax cuts, "[m]aking the already voted tax reductions permanent, bringing their effective dates forward, and lowering the rates further improves the quality of the already enacted tax cuts. These changes increase the restraint government spending and increase incentives for taxpayers to work, invest, and tax risks." Starve the beast never works, hell you're seeing it right now in the Ryan budget that doesn't propose any real decrease in overall spending but certainly proposes supply-side tax cuts(but not demand side ones, the demand side gets tax increases).

    I highly recommend this video from Cato that is framed as a debate about whether or not revenue enhancements should be on the table, the second guy from National Review(hardly a bastion of liberal thought) is the important one.

    http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=8201

  5. #40
    rkelly110
    rkelly110's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 10-05-09
    Posts: 37,869
    Betpoints: 9712

    Alrighty Dwighty! Finally some common sense out of you!

  6. #41
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 701

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    Shaud you know that top 10% of the population pays 70% of the taxes? I understand the rich has to pay more, and i agree with it. But i think that 10% of the population paying 70% of the taxes is more than enough. You wan't them to pay more? How much more? you want 10% of the population to pay 95% of the taxes? What's your idea of fair?
    I wasn't able to find an exact figure for the top 10%, but the top 20% of the population controls 93% of the financial wealth(the top 1% controls 42.7% of it). It therefore seems pretty reasonable to me that the top 10% would be paying 70% of the taxes, since they control over 90% of the wealth.

    My argument is not that the wealthiest should necessarily pay more(well more than they were in 2003 anyway(see below), although based on my figures above and your figures they are not paying an amount equal to their wealth). My argument is instead that the way out of our financial crisis and toward a balanced budget is not to MAKE THEM PAY LESS, which is what the Republicans propose through the Ryan budget, they crouch it as broadening the tax base, and say that they are closing loopholes to make the rich pay more, but the reality is that the rich will still figure out a way to game the system, they will still find ways to shelter their wealth, and they will still end up paying less. The truly poor, and the middle class, on the other hand, will end up paying MORE.

    If you believe, as I do, and lots of rational people do, on all sides, that we are in a demand side downturn, as in one where the economy is stagnant because of decreased demand at the lowest socioeconomic levels, than the way out is certainly not to shift the tax burden onto those who are most likely to be demanders. Giving more money to suppliers may create some amount of jobs because the suppliers have more money to invest and hire, but not nearly to the level that taking money from the demanders will. Taking money from the demanders is twice bad, because not only does it decrease their ability to buy, but it also decreases the suppliers ability to hire because they don't have demanders for their products and services. All the increased capital in the world in order to expand and hire doesn't make a lick of difference if the demanders aren't demanding. You may create a few more demanders through your hiring, but not to the level you're decreasing the already existing demanders ability to demand by taxing them more.

    I truly believe that we need across the board spending cuts(but not right this second, see below), that nothing is sacred, not the military, not entitlements, not discretionary spending. I also believe that the Bush tax cuts were unnecessary and didn't spur the economy nearly to the level they cost the treasury, and should therefore not be made permanent, at least at the highest income brackets(repealing them at the lowest economic brackets would stifle demand).

    What I see right now in Congress is one side, the Democrats, not trying to repeal sequestration for the discretionary non-military spending, and the other side trying to repeal sequestration for the military spending and foisting those spending cuts all on discretionary spending, and proposing a budget that refuses to touch, and instead increases, military spending.

    What I also believe is that now is not the time to cut, now is the time to not break a fragile economy with cuts. I do not honestly believe we are at a breaking point yet, and we won't be for a number of years, there is still high demand for US dollars and investment. But that the wrong level of cuts, or cutting too much too quickly could be disastrous.

    What I also see is that GDP growth was way up last quarter, except for in one area, government spending(the G in the GDP calculation), that says to me that if we weren't so focused on government cutting that the economy would be growing even faster, but instead we are caught up in this debt and deficit debate that is too premature for my taste.

    I've said in other threads that I would vote for a Republican as soon as a Democrat, but not right now, not when so much is at stake. Not when the Republicans solutions are cut cut cut(BUT NOT THE MILITARY!!!!) when we're in the middle of a demand side problem.
    Last edited by Shaudius; 05-26-12 at 05:55 PM.

  7. #42
    DwightShrute
    I don't believe you ... please continue
    DwightShrute's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 01-17-09
    Posts: 90,341
    Betpoints: 3908

    Quote Originally Posted by rkelly110 View Post
    Alrighty Dwighty! Finally some common sense out of you!

  8. #43
    hockey216
    hockey216's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-20-08
    Posts: 4,584
    Betpoints: 174

    You can never really have that much demand from low socioeconomic levels. No matter what the tax rates for the poor. They have no money to spend. Hence the term "low-socioeconomic level."

    10% of the population pays 70% of the taxes. How much do you want them to pay? What is your idea of fair? Do you want 10% of the population to pay 95% of the taxes? What is your idea of fair? 10% of the population actually pays 70% of the taxes. That's not enough?
    Last edited by hockey216; 05-26-12 at 07:12 PM.

  9. #44
    Emily_Haines
    Emily_Haines's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-14-09
    Posts: 14,656
    Betpoints: 14028

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    Do you want 10% of the population to pay 95% of the taxes?
    I think the top 10% should pay a minimum of 90% of all the required tax

  10. #45
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 701

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    You can never really have that much demand from low socioeconomic levels. No matter what the tax rates for the poor. They have no money to spend. Hence the term "low-socioeconomic level."

    10% of the population pays 70% of the taxes. How much do you want them to pay? What is your idea of fair? Do you want 10% of the population to pay 95% of the taxes? What is your idea of fair? 10% of the population actually pays 70% of the taxes. That's not enough?
    You have 100% demand of available resources from people of low socioeconomic class, that's the point, its not that they don't have much, its that they spend what they do have, and if you give them a little more they spend that too, the rich can afford to save away, the poor must live paycheck to paycheck paying using all of their resources on things that spur demand. Food, clothing, shelter, etc. The rich do not have to do this, how much of Mitt Romney's accumulated wealth do you think he spends in a year? What percentage of somehow who makes 20k a year do you think they spend in a year? Giving Mitt Romney an extra million dollars isn't going to cause him to spend an extra million dollars(not on things that produce demand anyway), he will save the vast majority of it(or invest it in mostly non-demand generating things, like trading stocks with others or buying bonds, not IPOs or Angel investing), giving 4,000 people who make 20k an extra $250 and 90+% of it will get spent, its about the aggregate not the individual.

    Also, please read my response where I said that they have 90+% of the wealth(top 20%). So by definition they are not paying as much of a percentage of the taxes as percentage of the wealth they have(note that I could not find the 10% wealth figure figure) and that I don't want them to pay more than they did in 2000 prior to when the Bush tax cuts were passed. But even we make the Bush tax cuts permanent, I certainly don't want them paying less which is what the Republicans are proposing with the Ryan budget.
    Last edited by Shaudius; 05-26-12 at 08:17 PM.

  11. #46
    Tully Mars 63
    Tully Mars 63's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-11
    Posts: 2,750

    Quote Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post
    But there is a cease fire. And Dwight kept us out of Viet Nam.

    You learned history where?
    In late 1954, Gen. J. Lawton Collins was made ambassador to "Free Vietnam" (the term South Vietnam came into use in 1955), effectively elevating the country to sovereign status. Collins' instructions were to support the leader Ngo Dinh Diem in subverting communism, by helping him to build an army and wage a military campaign.[152] In the years that followed, Eisenhower increased the number of US military advisors in South Vietnam to 900 men.[153] This was due to North Vietnam's support of "uprisings" in the south and concern the nation would fall.[150] In May 1957 Diem, then President of South Vietnam, made a state visit to the United States for ten days. President Eisenhower pledged his continued support, and a parade was held in Diem's honor in New York City. Although Diem was publicly praised, in private Secretary of State John Foster Dulles conceded that Diem had been selected because there were no better alternatives.[154] After the election of November 1960, Eisenhower in briefing with John F. Kennedy pointed out the communist threat in Southeast Asia as requiring prioritization in the next administration. Eisenhower told Kennedy he considered Laos to be "the cork in the bottle" in regards to the regional threat.[155]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_...Southeast_Asia

  12. #47
    hockey216
    hockey216's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-20-08
    Posts: 4,584
    Betpoints: 174

    The poor have no-money. Hence the term poor. Even if the government taxes them 0%, they wouldn't have that much more. Depending on your deductions, you don't have to pay a federal income tax if you're below 12000 i think. Not exactly sure as it varies based on your deductions. But don't kid yourself. The poor pays nothing. You can give them an extra 100 dollars. they will still not be able to stimulate the economy because you can't buy that much with 100 bucks. And they're likely to just use it to pay their rent or increase their apartment or something. tax cuts to the wealthy enable small businesses hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire more workers, buy more capital, etc. a wealthy person also helps the economy by merely keeping his money in the bank. Even if they are saving, it still helps the economy because it enables banks to loan out more money to businesses, who then use their loans to hire workers, invest in capital, etc. You do know that your bank loans out your money, right?

    If Romney invests in the stock market, where do you think that money goes? It goes to corporations, who then in turn use it to hire employees, invest in capital ($ to capital companies, who then hire more employees, etc.). Where do you think all the employees that work for general electric get their paychecks? From Stockholders like Mitt Romney. You don't understand what the stock market is, or how corporations work. You also don't understand how the economy works, nor how taxes work. When the wealthy invest in the stock market, it provides corporations the capital to hire workers and invest in capital. The main reason that businesses go public and form corporate entities (other than limited liability) is so they can raise more capital for expansion. you think that hiring more workers and purchasing more capital doesn't help the economy?
    Last edited by hockey216; 05-26-12 at 10:15 PM.

  13. #48
    hockey216
    hockey216's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-20-08
    Posts: 4,584
    Betpoints: 174

    Quote Originally Posted by Emily_Haines View Post
    I think the top 10% should pay a minimum of 90% of all the required tax
    you are a socialist. or at least you think you are. If you lived in countries like Greece, China, Cuba, North Korea, or other countries that have your favorite "command economy" you would quickly realize that socialism is not all its made out to be. The free-market is a better system. The free-market raises the standard of living for most people. Look at all the countries with the highest standard of living. Look at all the countries with the lowest standard of living. What's the trend? The countries with the highest standard of living are all capitalist and the countries with the lowest standard of living are all socialist/communist. You should move to North Korea or Cuba. then you can see how dreadful your political views really are.

    And that most people are better off in the free market...even if everyone is not 100% equal.

    Winston Churchill once said, "a critique of capitalism is that there is unequal sharing of the blessings. A critique of socialism is that there is equal sharing of the misery."
    Last edited by hockey216; 05-26-12 at 10:13 PM.

  14. #49
    guitarjosh
    guitarjosh's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-25-07
    Posts: 5,182

    Quote Originally Posted by Tully Mars 63 View Post
    There is a big difference between military advisors and US troops over there fighting.
    175 pts

    3-QUESTION
    SBR TRIVIA WINNER 11/21/2022


  15. #50
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 701

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    The poor have no-money. Hence the term poor. Even if the government taxes them 0%, they wouldn't have that much more. Depending on your deductions, you don't have to pay a federal income tax if you're below 12000 i think. Not exactly sure as it varies based on your deductions. But don't kid yourself. The poor pays nothing. You can give them an extra 100 dollars. they will still not be able to stimulate the economy because you can't buy that much with 100 bucks. And they're likely to just use it to pay their rent or increase their apartment or something. tax cuts to the wealthy enable small businesses hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire more workers, buy more capital, etc. a wealthy person also helps the economy by merely keeping his money in the bank. Even if they are saving, it still helps the economy because it enables banks to loan out more money to businesses, who then use their loans to hire workers, invest in capital, etc. You do know that your bank loans out your money, right?
    You can't get that much with $100, but that is not the point...please actually look at my example, you give Romney a million dollars, you give 4,000 poor people $250, the $250 to the 4,000 poor people will have more of an effect on demand because Romney won't spend the vast majority of that 1 million dollars in a way that will stimulate demand. Besides that the whole point is that even if right now the poor pay nothing(I'm not talking about the abject poor btw, I'm talking about the working poor, as in the people who actually have income, but even giving $250 to an abject poor person would stimulate demand), in the Republican proposal they pay something, which means that they will have less money to spend, its a decreased demand from the status quo, even if they pay nothing today.

    Using their $250 to increase their apartment or whatever is DEMAND spending, because it infuses capital directly into the company that manages their apartment complex, which allows that company to perform services to attract tenants, to charge more for their apartments, to upgrade things, all of which flow through the economy. That one dollar that you give a demander, has an effect that is closer to $2 when it goes through the economy, that's how demand spending works.

    Whereas in your example about giving tax cuts to the wealthy "job creators" they have no incentive to create jobs if there is no demand. If you give the owner of a McDonald's franchise(for instance) 100,000, he will not hire more workers, unless he needs to hire more workers to keep up with demand for his product. He's also not going to make capital improvements unless he has been deferring them for lack of cash(and if that was the case he could get a loan from the bank, if they were loaning the money they actually have that is, see below), he's not going to expand his business unless demand says that he can make a profit by doing so. Giving money to small business owners only works if it comes with an increase in demand, otherwise the small business owner is just going to pocket the extra cash.

    Your point about liquidity is an interesting one(more cash for banks to lend out), but it doesn't bore out in practice. Banks have plenty of free capital right now, but still are not lending at nearly the rate that they should be based on how much capital they have available. While there was a potential liquidity crisis at the beginning of the recession, it has since substantially abated. There's no evidence that increased liquidity today would do anything to cause banks to start lending more.

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    If Romney invests in the stock market, where do you think that money goes? It goes to corporations, who then in turn use it to hire employees, invest in capital ($ to capital companies, who then hire more employees, etc.). Where do you think all the employees that work for general electric get their paychecks? From Stockholders like Mitt Romney. You don't understand what the stock market is, or how corporations work. You also don't understand how the economy works, nor how taxes work. When the wealthy invest in the stock market, it provides corporations the capital to hire workers and invest in capital. The main reason that businesses go public and form corporate entities (other than limited liability) is so they can raise more capital for expansion. you think that hiring more workers and purchasing more capital doesn't help the economy?
    This right here is the great fallacy, the stock market is not in general a method by which corporations make money. When Romney invests in the stock market the money that he uses to buy stock goes to the person who sells the stock, which the vast majority of the time is not the corporation, it may sometimes be an employee of the corporation, but only in the case of IPOs and secondary offerings is the stock that Romney buying directly sold by the corporation.

    The employees that work at GE do not get their paycheck from stockholders like Mitt Romney, they get their paycheck from profits that the company gets from selling goods and services. Mitt Romney is a partial owner by owning stock, but he is not responsible for funding the company on a day to day basis(although if he purchased an IPO he may have been responsible for a one time influx of available cash to do things like hiring, but IPOs are a very minor part of the overall stock market).

    The fact that I have to explain this a second time means you don't seem to actually understand what the stock market is, especially based on your second paragraph, it is a secondary market in which buyers and sellers trade stock in companies that no longer have control of the stock that they are buying and selling, the company itself made profit when the stock was originally sold, but your average retail investor has nothing to do with the bottom line of a company, and even those that own substantial shares in the company only have decisionmaking authority in as far as their percentage will take them(at shareholder meetings voting for shareholder proposals and board of directors).
    Last edited by Shaudius; 05-26-12 at 10:59 PM.

  16. #51
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 701

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    you are a socialist. or at least you think you are. If you lived in countries like Greece, China, Cuba, North Korea, or other countries that have your favorite "command economy" you would quickly realize that socialism is not all its made out to be. The free-market is a better system. The free-market raises the standard of living for most people. Look at all the countries with the highest standard of living. Look at all the countries with the lowest standard of living. What's the trend? The countries with the highest standard of living are all capitalist and the countries with the lowest standard of living are all socialist/communist. You should move to North Korea or Cuba. then you can see how dreadful your political views really are.

    And that most people are better off in the free market...even if everyone is not 100% equal.

    Winston Churchill once said, "a critique of capitalism is that there is unequal sharing of the blessings. A critique of socialism is that there is equal sharing of the misery."
    You have chosen a very interesting group of countries to support your argument that socialism is not all that its made out to be and command economies are worse than free market ones.

    What do you suppose the economic growth is in China right now? Do you think its more or less than the US? You consider China a command economy, but you seem to be ignorant of the fact that is one of(if not the) fastest growing economies in the world.

    You also consider Greece as an example of a command economy(even though its not), but what about Germany? What about Sweden or Denmark that have equally high taxation and socialist policies. What about Canada? Are their economies stagnant like Greece's? Answer is they are not, and to the amount they are it is to a substantially less degree, its a resource issue and a what your economy is based on issue. Greece is not an example of the free market winning in the socialist/free market debate.

    You also cite two countries that are not only actually command economies but also have isolated themselves from the world, Cuba and North Korea. Do you not think that has more to do with their plight than the fact that they are command economies? Totalitarianism is deplorable, but China should show you that command economies can flourish as long as they don't isolate themselves from the rest of the world.

    Not that the wealthy paying 90% of all the taxes would make us a command economy or socialist, but whatever.

  17. #52
    hockey216
    hockey216's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-20-08
    Posts: 4,584
    Betpoints: 174

    So who pays the employees of a corporation during a quarter where the company takes a loss? How are they paid from profits if they don't exist? Stockholders pay them. Where did the company get its capital in the first place to even be able to initially expand and hire the employees, in order to make a profit in the first place? Stockholders. Corporations issue stock to raise capital for expansion. When people invest, they use that money to invest in capital, hiring more workers, etc. Just because a rich person invests in the stock does not mean the corporation won't stimulate the economy with that money.

    You can buy stock through many banks and on E-trade for 9.99 a trade. You can buy $10 Million worth of a company for a one-time $9.99 house comission. Obviously you pay another $9.99 when you sell. but that's it. How is the house getting most of that 10 million again???? You think if you buy 10 million bucks of wal-mart, that e-trade would take 6 million commission, and you wal-mart would only get 4 million? No. Most of the money goes to the corporation. Otherwise people wouldn't invest.

    The only reason China is growing so fast is because they started implementing CAPITALIST reforms, and finally started embracing the free market. It has been China's capitalistic reforms that has allowed them to grow. Look at what happened when a command economy started allowing the free market. Thank goodness that Mao Zedong maniac is dead. He prevented growth, but also destroyed a lot of China's history, particularly their religious history. Confucionism and Taoism were effected dramatically. Buddhism was also affected. The Dalai Lama had to flee to India. Particularly confucionism though, as taoism had followers that spread to other countries. The interesting political situation in China now is whether Tibet will gain its independence, as China controlls it. The Dalai Lama goes around promoting independence from china. who knows.

    So if the command system is so prosperous, why are the best economies in the world all capitalist, and the lowest all command economies?
    Last edited by hockey216; 05-27-12 at 12:59 AM.

  18. #53
    hockey216
    hockey216's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-20-08
    Posts: 4,584
    Betpoints: 174

    I didn't mean Greece was a command economy. I misspoke. I referred to them to illustrate the damages of reckless government spending. But they have socialistic government policies with regards to their reckless spending.

    How many of these other socialist countries you mentioned run 5 Trillion Dollar deficits every 4 years?

    If they do, im willing to bet they will end up like Greece very soon.
    Last edited by hockey216; 05-27-12 at 02:34 AM.

  19. #54
    Waterstpub87
    Life-Style Arbitrage
    Waterstpub87's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 09-10-09
    Posts: 3,989
    Betpoints: 3499

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    So who pays the employees of a corporation during a quarter where the company takes a loss? How are they paid from profits if they don't exist? Stockholders pay them. Where did the company get its capital in the first place to even be able to initially expand and hire the employees, in order to make a profit in the first place? Stockholders. Corporations issue stock to raise capital for expansion. When people invest, they use that money to invest in capital, hiring more workers, etc. Just because a rich person invests in the stock does not mean the corporation won't stimulate the economy with that money.

    You can buy stock through many banks and on E-trade for 9.99 a trade. You can buy $10 Million worth of a company for a one-time $9.99 house comission. Obviously you pay another $9.99 when you sell. but that's it. How is the house getting most of that 10 million again???? You think if you buy 10 million bucks of wal-mart, that e-trade would take 6 million commission, and you wal-mart would only get 4 million? No. Most of the money goes to the corporation. Otherwise people wouldn't invest.

    The only reason China is growing so fast is because they started implementing CAPITALIST reforms, and finally started embracing the free market. It has been China's capitalistic reforms that has allowed them to grow. Look at what happened when a command economy started allowing the free market. Thank goodness that Mao Zedong maniac is dead. He prevented growth, but also destroyed a lot of China's history, particularly their religious history. Confucionism and Taoism were effected dramatically. Buddhism was also affected. The Dalai Lama had to flee to India. Particularly confucionism though, as taoism had followers that spread to other countries. The interesting political situation in China now is whether Tibet will gain its independence, as China controlls it. The Dalai Lama goes around promoting independence from china. who knows.

    So if the command system is so prosperous, why are the best economies in the world all capitalist, and the lowest all command economies?
    Not to disagree, but at no point when you buy stock do you actual contribute to an companies coffers unless they are selling treasury shares (very rare). Non-ipo stock purchases go to the investor who is selling the stock to you. Most IPOs are bridge financed, in which case investors have already purchased the stock and they then sell it to the public. Highly liquid capital markets allow companies to raise cash at lower prices, but you normally don't give the company money at all.

  20. #55
    hockey216
    hockey216's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-20-08
    Posts: 4,584
    Betpoints: 174

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterstpub87 View Post
    Not to disagree, but at no point when you buy stock do you actual contribute to an companies coffers unless they are selling treasury shares (very rare). Non-ipo stock purchases go to the investor who is selling the stock to you. Most IPOs are bridge financed, in which case investors have already purchased the stock and they then sell it to the public. Highly liquid capital markets allow companies to raise cash at lower prices, but you normally don't give the company money at all.
    Really? interesting. I have bought and sold stock from exxon, dominos, and other companies. so if i go on e-trade and buy the stock at, say, 60 bucks a share. i say i want 100 shares. i pay the 6grand plus a 9.99 etrade fee. I would like to think i just bought 100 shares of the company. Heck, when exxon makes a profit and i sell my 100 shares, i get the reward of the increased stock price. Granted, firms can short the stock if it doesn't look profitable. But if the firm i invest in is expected to make a bunch of $$$ they would buy back the 100 shares they sold me, or they'd be taking a loss. Not sure what you meant here, but you probably know more about this than i do so i'd like you to clarify. If i buy 100 shares of a company, I don't own 100 shares of that company? How do i own it if they didn't get the money? Are you talking about whether firms decide to short a stock after they sell it to me? Brokerage firms are selling me shares that they already own. I get that. But assuming that i am investing in a company that is profitable, the brokerage firm wouldn't want to go buy the shares back? I thought etrade made their 10 bucks, and i own 100 shares of the company because i bought it. If the company doesnt get the money, how do i own 100 shares? I bought 100 shares. Do i not own 100 shares if i buy it? You probably know more about this than i do. And this really isnt the core of the debate between shaud and i. you know more about this than i do. i would like clarification on this for my own knowledge. Thanks waters.
    Last edited by hockey216; 05-27-12 at 02:37 AM.

  21. #56
    Tully Mars 63
    Tully Mars 63's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-11
    Posts: 2,750

    Quote Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post
    There is a big difference between military advisors and US troops over there fighting.
    My point is you can't say
    And Dwight kept us out of Viet Nam
    When he's the POTUS that first sent troops to the country and on his way out the Oval Office door informed the incoming POTUS by pointing-

    out the communist threat in Southeast Asia as requiring prioritization in the next administration. Eisenhower told Kennedy he considered Laos to be "the cork in the bottle" in regards to the regional threat.
    I mean I guess you can say "And Dwight kept us out of Viet Nam." But it's just BS.

  22. #57
    Waterstpub87
    Life-Style Arbitrage
    Waterstpub87's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 09-10-09
    Posts: 3,989
    Betpoints: 3499

    You do get the shares. The company doesn't get the money. Whoever owned the shares before you gets the money.

  23. #58
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 701

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    So who pays the employees of a corporation during a quarter where the company takes a loss? How are they paid from profits if they don't exist? Stockholders pay them. Where did the company get its capital in the first place to even be able to initially expand and hire the employees, in order to make a profit in the first place? Stockholders. Corporations issue stock to raise capital for expansion. When people invest, they use that money to invest in capital, hiring more workers, etc. Just because a rich person invests in the stock does not mean the corporation won't stimulate the economy with that money.
    Waterspub is right but I'll add some more details. In a quarter where the company takes a loss employees are paid by the company's available cash on hand, or in the alternative through loans from a bank or by selling corporate bonds, much in the same way that the US sells treasury bonds(that mature over time). I don't know if you recall, but as I alluded to above, during the heart of the financial crisis, there was a real worry that companies would not be able to make payroll, this was because they were operating at losses or in the alternative were using loans to bridge the gap between when their revenue came in and when their payroll was due, they did not have the available cash on hand. Stockholders never pay for employees directly(bondholders do so indirectly when they initially buy the bonds).

    So a rich person investing in stock does not power the company's cash(except in the case of, as I said, angel funding, IPO and secondary offerings where the stock sale does go directly to the company, although the individual investor in the case of latter two is not the direct source of cash).

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    You can buy stock through many banks and on E-trade for 9.99 a trade. You can buy $10 Million worth of a company for a one-time $9.99 house comission. Obviously you pay another $9.99 when you sell. but that's it. How is the house getting most of that 10 million again???? You think if you buy 10 million bucks of wal-mart, that e-trade would take 6 million commission, and you wal-mart would only get 4 million? No. Most of the money goes to the corporation. Otherwise people wouldn't invest.
    When you buy 10 million bucks worth of Wal-Mart today, Wal-Mart gets $0 unless it was part of a Wal-Mart secondary offering of the stock still retained by the company itself. The vast majority of stock is not retained by the company, or even the principals. Instead it is all on the market. When you buy stock on the open market, as waterspub also told you. You contribute $0 to the company, although by rising its share price you can make the individuals within the company richer if you were paying them in equity prior to going public and they retained those shares, and can therefore sell them on the open market.

    This is why so many Facebook insiders are losing their shirts right now compared to the IPO price since they were paid in the past in equity. Its one of the great ways to attract talent to promising start-ups.

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    The only reason China is growing so fast is because they started implementing CAPITALIST reforms, and finally started embracing the free market. It has been China's capitalistic reforms that has allowed them to grow. Look at what happened when a command economy started allowing the free market. Thank goodness that Mao Zedong maniac is dead. He prevented growth, but also destroyed a lot of China's history, particularly their religious history. Confucionism and Taoism were effected dramatically. Buddhism was also affected. The Dalai Lama had to flee to India. Particularly confucionism though, as taoism had followers that spread to other countries. The interesting political situation in China now is whether Tibet will gain its independence, as China controlls it. The Dalai Lama goes around promoting independence from china. who knows.

    So if the command system is so prosperous, why are the best economies in the world all capitalist, and the lowest all command economies?
    The vast majority of China's megacorporations are state owned. China embraced the free market only in so much as it allowed their huge state run corporations to market to other countries. They also opened themselves up to foreign investment, but not to the level where the state still doesn't control the vast majority of the large companies and resources. Who do you think owns China Mobil, China's largest mobile servicer, the state, who do you think owns the major oil companies, the state, who do you think owns Air China, again the state. China's largest tobacco company? The state. China's largest shipping company? The state. The state owns all the major industries, they just do business with the West, and they do it cheaply because they don't care a ton about things like worker safety and living conditions. That is why their economy is growing so much, because western companies can get things cheaper from China and therefore infuse their economy with resources. China is a command economy, the means of production and the direction of resources and business is decided by the state.

    In case you were actually wondering, the countries with the greatest growth right now is in countries that have recently been opened to the west, but only in so much as the west is now being allowed to buy the resources of the countries, or exploit the cheap labor of the country, not because those countries became capitalist. Some of them already were capitalist, but didn't open to the west, others remain command economies but have started to sell their resources.

    That's why the greatest growth is happening in places like Turkmenistan, Mongolia, China, and Iraq.
    Last edited by Shaudius; 05-27-12 at 01:00 PM.

  24. #59
    guitarjosh
    guitarjosh's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-25-07
    Posts: 5,182

    Quote Originally Posted by Tully Mars 63 View Post
    My point is you can't say When he's the POTUS that first sent troops to the country and on his way out the Oval Office door informed the incoming POTUS by pointing-



    I mean I guess you can say "And Dwight kept us out of Viet Nam." But it's just BS.
    Ok, here is how this started. Left wing posters were blaming the debt run up under Obama on W, because of tax cuts and militarism started under W. I pointed out that there was a lot more militarism and tax cuts under democrat administrations, yet those same posters wouldn't blame Reagan's deficits on those democrat presidents.

    Proportionally, FDR, LBJ, Kennedy, & Truman increased fighting and militarism much more than Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford. Kennedy, LBJ, and Carter cut taxes more than Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford.

    To sit back and dwell on were they advisors or troops is missing the point, that if you're blaming W for debt run up under Obama, you need to blame democrats for debt run up under Reagan, especially since most of the debt under Reagan was just interest on the debt he inherited.
    175 pts

    3-QUESTION
    SBR TRIVIA WINNER 11/21/2022


  25. #60
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 701

    Quote Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post
    Ok, here is how this started. Left wing posters were blaming the debt run up under Obama on W, because of tax cuts and militarism started under W. I pointed out that there was a lot more militarism and tax cuts under democrat administrations, yet those same posters wouldn't blame Reagan's deficits on those democrat presidents.

    Proportionally, FDR, LBJ, Kennedy, & Truman increased fighting and militarism much more than Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford. Kennedy, LBJ, and Carter cut taxes more than Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford.

    To sit back and dwell on were they advisors or troops is missing the point, that if you're blaming W for debt run up under Obama, you need to blame democrats for debt run up under Reagan, especially since most of the debt under Reagan was just interest on the debt he inherited.
    The point is the OP is blaming Obama for debt that he wasn't responsible for. You can't blame Bush for most debt run up from 2000-2001, anymore than you can blame Clinton for most debt run up from 1992-1993 or Reagan for most debt run up from 1980-1981. The federal budget is on a ~8 month delay from inauguration day, the fiscal year running from October 1 - September 30th, and the interest on that debt built up also out of the newly elected President's control.

    To make this a debate about militarism completely misses the point, the OP is trying to attribute blame to Obama for all the debt of the last four years, but to do so is ridiculous on its face based on how the federal budget is passed.

    The issue is that this is the first time its really been a huge talking point on one side or the other, we've always heard grumbling about the debt and deficit, but I've never in my time seen it used to such a degree and in such a disingenuous manner by one side of the debate.

  26. #61
    NYSportsGuy210
    NYSportsGuy210's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 11-07-09
    Posts: 11,359
    Betpoints: 130

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    So if Obama started taxing the rich, deficit wouldn't have risen by 5 Trillion?
    Agreed. Maybe 2.5 trillion only because we spent nearly a trillion just bailing out the banks on that shady MBS scandal (which was because the de-regualation of banks by right wingers.)
    Last edited by NYSportsGuy210; 05-27-12 at 06:51 PM.

  27. #62
    hockey216
    hockey216's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-20-08
    Posts: 4,584
    Betpoints: 174

    Yes China still has not gotton rid of the command system entirely. But their recent growth at such rapid levels has been because of their embracing of the free market. If the command economy is that great, why wasn't china growing at this rate in the 1970's?

    Shaud... i am assuming that you are college educated. And you seem to be relatively knowledgable about a certain number of things. This is a rare thing among liberals i have spoken with. Most liberals just go around saying, "durrr im lazy and want to sit on my ass. Why go out and work for a living? I can sit on my ass and get free money from the government. why don't we all just sit on our ass and get free handouts. We earned it. If we are lazy, then the rich has to pay our bills. Obama and the rich should pay all the lazy people's bills."

    I still disagree with you. And i could go on for hours on economics. For days. Probably even for years. But nonetheless, I am glad you have offered an intellectually stimulating conversation. You know more than 99% of your liberal colleagues. It has been a good experience to speak with the first knowledgeable liberal on planet earth.

    PS if you want to keep going, we can. The focus of my post is that the United States cannot sustain long term spending deficits of 5 Trillion every 4 years. They just can't. I also argued that raising taxes does not help the economy, but rather hurts it. Thus, Clinton was coincidentally lucky to be in office during a cyclical change. You can't argue that raising taxes stimulated the economy in the 90's. It makes no sense. I hope that everybody, both democrats and republicans included, can start embracing the ideas of the free market, and stop the reckless spending so our government doesn't go bankrupt and have to shut down. Taxes are bad for the economy. Even if the government deficit spends today (good in the short term), there will still be MORE harm down the road when the government has to pay the money back, plus interest. Interest is the reason that the government will always take more money out of the economy than it puts back in when it borrows.

    Regardless.... this is not a surrender. I can go at it with you for years. I just think we should agree to disagree, and both concede that both parties have made intellectual points. You are far smarter than your liberal colleagues. The arguments that i hear from most other liberals on a daily basis make absolutely no sense, and you can tell how dumb most liberals are when it comes to the economy. Despite our disagreement, You are the only intelligent liberal i have ever spoken with. I think we should leave it here.

  28. #63
    NYSportsGuy210
    NYSportsGuy210's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 11-07-09
    Posts: 11,359
    Betpoints: 130

    Hockey216 -

    I think you have a misconception and a massive error in stereotyping about liberals in general by saying MOST of them are lazy, don't want to work and just want government hand outs. Most of the liberal and citizens of the U.S. in general want to work and make a comfortable living for themselves but they just can't find any jobs. There just is no market or demand.

    Why?

    Because greedy right wing policy makers make it so there aren't any. And when they get tax breaks to create more jobs to try and help the working class they decide to just pocket the extra cash instead of expand business.

    That is basically what it comes down to.

  29. #64
    guitarjosh
    guitarjosh's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-25-07
    Posts: 5,182

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaudius View Post
    The point is the OP is blaming Obama for debt that he wasn't responsible for. You can't blame Bush for most debt run up from 2000-2001, anymore than you can blame Clinton for most debt run up from 1992-1993 or Reagan for most debt run up from 1980-1981. The federal budget is on a ~8 month delay from inauguration day, the fiscal year running from October 1 - September 30th, and the interest on that debt built up also out of the newly elected President's control.

    To make this a debate about militarism completely misses the point, the OP is trying to attribute blame to Obama for all the debt of the last four years, but to do so is ridiculous on its face based on how the federal budget is passed.

    The issue is that this is the first time its really been a huge talking point on one side or the other, we've always heard grumbling about the debt and deficit, but I've never in my time seen it used to such a degree and in such a disingenuous manner by one side of the debate.
    I didn't make the debate about tax cuts and militarism, the left did. They were the ones who said that Obama has only spent about 1 trillion of the debt, the rest was because of W's tax cuts and wars. That would be fine, as long as they will also admit that Reagan and both Bushs inherited a lot more in tax cuts and militarism than Obama did, which they won't do.
    175 pts

    3-QUESTION
    SBR TRIVIA WINNER 11/21/2022


  30. #65
    Tully Mars 63
    Tully Mars 63's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-11
    Posts: 2,750

    Quote Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post
    Ok, here is how this started. Left wing posters were blaming the debt run up under Obama on W, because of tax cuts and militarism started under W. I pointed out that there was a lot more militarism and tax cuts under democrat administrations, yet those same posters wouldn't blame Reagan's deficits on those democrat presidents.

    Proportionally, FDR, LBJ, Kennedy, & Truman increased fighting and militarism much more than Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford. Kennedy, LBJ, and Carter cut taxes more than Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford.

    To sit back and dwell on were they advisors or troops is missing the point, that if you're blaming W for debt run up under Obama, you need to blame democrats for debt run up under Reagan, especially since most of the debt under Reagan was just interest on the debt he inherited.

    I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "ok, here's how this started." All I'm saying is you can't credit Ike for keeping us out of Nam because it's a completely false statement. He's one of my favorite Presidents but he most certainly did not "keep us out of Nam." If you want to make a point that's fine. But if you do so by posting completely inaccurate statements it's highly likely someones going to call BS on you.

    I'd like to see where you get the numbers to support this-
    Left wing posters were blaming the debt run up under Obama on W, because of tax cuts and militarism started under W. I pointed out that there was a lot more militarism and tax cuts under democrat administrations, yet those same posters wouldn't blame Reagan's deficits on those democrat presidents.

    Proportionally, FDR, LBJ, Kennedy, & Truman increased fighting and militarism much more than Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford. Kennedy, LBJ, and Carter cut taxes more than Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford.
    When it comes to who spent what amount on what and the total effect of that spending it gets complicated. I have one family member and a friend who both wrote dissertations on variations of this subject.

    Here's US News and World Reports take on the cost of the Iraq war-

    khttp://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...than-you-think

  31. #66
    guitarjosh
    guitarjosh's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-25-07
    Posts: 5,182

    Quote Originally Posted by Tully Mars 63 View Post
    I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "ok, here's how this started." All I'm saying is you can't credit Ike for keeping us out of Nam because it's a completely false statement. He's one of my favorite Presidents but he most certainly did not "keep us out of Nam." If you want to make a point that's fine. But if you do so by posting completely inaccurate statements it's highly likely someones going to call BS on you.

    I'd like to see where you get the numbers to support this-


    When it comes to who spent what amount on what and the total effect of that spending it gets complicated. I have one family member and a friend who both wrote dissertations on variations of this subject.

    Here's US News and World Reports take on the cost of the Iraq war-

    khttp://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...than-you-think
    I was explaining how the issue of militarism came up in the thread. The left always blames debt under Obama on Bush because of his tax cuts and wars, yet they never blame much larger tax cuts and military involvement on democrat presidents when it comes to debt under republican presidents. Someone asked if Ike was a democrat, and I pointed out that he ended the war in Korea, and kept us out of Viet Nam, which in relative terms he did. Yes, he did send military advisors over there, but it was nothing compared to what JFK and LBJ sent over.

    Kennedy cut the top tax rate from the low 90s to 70%, much larger than W's 4.6% cut on the top bracket. Since WWII, there have been 3 presidents to leave office with lower capital gains taxes than they inherited: Carter inherited 39%, left with it at 28%, Clinton inherited 28%, left with it at 20%, W inherited 20%, left it at 15%. But no one blames debt under Reagan or W on Carter and Clinton.

    Again, most of the debt run up under Reagan was due to interest on the debt, which he had little control over. Some years, like FY 1989, if it wasn't for interest on the debt, we would have actually run a surplus.
    175 pts

    3-QUESTION
    SBR TRIVIA WINNER 11/21/2022


  32. #67
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 701

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    Yes China still has not gotton rid of the command system entirely. But their recent growth at such rapid levels has been because of their embracing of the free market. If the command economy is that great, why wasn't china growing at this rate in the 1970's?
    Oh that one is easy. China wasn't growing like it is now in the 70s and before because it wasn't open to the West, and hence Western demand and desire for cheap labor. We're both probably too young to actually remember this first hand, but there was a trip by Nixon to China in 1972 that laid at least some of the foundation for the opening of China to the West, but there was this thing called the Cold War still going on, and we were still fighting this thing called Vietnam, that was as much as proxy war with China as it was with Russia. It wasn't really until the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union that things really got moving.

    China's growth is much about the exploitation of previous untapped resources, and the desire for cheap labor and production then it is about whether or not the government itself is capitalistic or command. Especially since, as I've already demonstrated most big business in China is state run.

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    Shaud... i am assuming that you are college educated. And you seem to be relatively knowledgable about a certain number of things. This is a rare thing among liberals i have spoken with. Most liberals just go around saying, "durrr im lazy and want to sit on my ass. Why go out and work for a living? I can sit on my ass and get free money from the government. why don't we all just sit on our ass and get free handouts. We earned it. If we are lazy, then the rich has to pay our bills. Obama and the rich should pay all the lazy people's bills."
    For starters, I do not self identify as a liberal, but frankly I find your characterization of most liberals to be offensive. This statement is no better than a liberal saying that most conservatives are racist. Neither adds to the political discourse in anything but a divisive way, and really has no place in the political realm. I don't think your discourse thus far has been bad, and its been a fairly healthy debate, but statements like this are no better than Andy Wend's anti-liberal totalitarianism rhetoric. As far me, in my younger years I would call myself a libertarian. I've in the past applied to work at Cato, and count as in my past one of closest acquaintances, someone who wrote one of the most scathing books about Obama there is. But at this point in time I don't see any ideas coming out of the right that I can really get behind, there is no one in the Republican party with any real leadership role who is actually pushing for what this country needs.

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    PS if you want to keep going, we can. The focus of my post is that the United States cannot sustain long term spending deficits of 5 Trillion every 4 years. They just can't. I also argued that raising taxes does not help the economy, but rather hurts it. Thus, Clinton was coincidentally lucky to be in office during a cyclical change. You can't argue that raising taxes stimulated the economy in the 90's. It makes no sense. I hope that everybody, both democrats and republicans included, can start embracing the ideas of the free market, and stop the reckless spending so our government doesn't go bankrupt and have to shut down. Taxes are bad for the economy. Even if the government deficit spends today (good in the short term), there will still be MORE harm down the road when the government has to pay the money back, plus interest. Interest is the reason that the government will always take more money out of the economy than it puts back in when it borrows.
    Its not that the country can sustain this level of debt long term, its that to cut now would be irresponsible when cutting is not the way to economic success. China's growth is slowing, do you know what they're planning to boost it? Stimulus spending. You don't cut your way out of economic stagnation any more than you spend your way out of debt. And right now the economic stagnation is a lot bigger of an issue than the debt, at least for America.

    What I see from the right is more of the same, cut(taxes), don't really cut spending, hope that we grow our way out of debt(see the Ryan budget's idea that magically we will take in 1 trillion dollars revenue more than we are today in 3 years if its passed but we will not spend any less money doing it). That we can spend the same and more on military spending tomorrow and magically cut our way out of debt, that the military spending is sacred but non-military discretionary spending must go. That tax increases on the poorest among us will somehow not stifle demand. Its all insanity.

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    Regardless.... this is not a surrender. I can go at it with you for years. I just think we should agree to disagree, and both concede that both parties have made intellectual points. You are far smarter than your liberal colleagues. The arguments that i hear from most other liberals on a daily basis make absolutely no sense, and you can tell how dumb most liberals are when it comes to the economy. Despite our disagreement, You are the only intelligent liberal i have ever spoken with. I think we should leave it here.
    Honestly, the rhetoric I see on boards like this across the internet is terrible from both sides. I get involved here because I see especially horrible things coming out of the purporting conservatives on this board(at a much higher degree than from the purported liberals), from suggesting repeal of the civil rights acts to suggesting that all liberals be confined to California. To backhanded complements like in your post. The truth honestly is that the vast majority of the people debating on this forum have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, and simple Google searches would disprove 95% of what is said, but that won't change anyone's mind, Andy Wend will continue to be full of rage at liberals, Dwight Scrute will be too. Mayan will still make easily attacked points that they can both pounce on. I'll still spend four posts explaining how the stock market works, or the federal budget process, or public opinion polling, or any number of things that if people opened up a book or hell Wikipedia they should be easily able to understand.

  33. #68
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 701

    Quote Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post
    I was explaining how the issue of militarism came up in the thread. The left always blames debt under Obama on Bush because of his tax cuts and wars, yet they never blame much larger tax cuts and military involvement on democrat presidents when it comes to debt under republican presidents. Someone asked if Ike was a democrat, and I pointed out that he ended the war in Korea, and kept us out of Viet Nam, which in relative terms he did. Yes, he did send military advisors over there, but it was nothing compared to what JFK and LBJ sent over.

    Kennedy cut the top tax rate from the low 90s to 70%, much larger than W's 4.6% cut on the top bracket. Since WWII, there have been 3 presidents to leave office with lower capital gains taxes than they inherited: Carter inherited 39%, left with it at 28%, Clinton inherited 28%, left with it at 20%, W inherited 20%, left it at 15%. But no one blames debt under Reagan or W on Carter and Clinton.

    Again, most of the debt run up under Reagan was due to interest on the debt, which he had little control over. Some years, like FY 1989, if it wasn't for interest on the debt, we would have actually run a surplus.
    Frankly the left blaming W Bush for the debt is a response to the right blaming Obama for it. No one was really talking about the debt under W Bush, so there was no reason to bring it up by the right just like no one was really talking about the debt in 1992, so there was no reason for the left to bring it up. Cheney said it himself, "deficits don't matter"(except apparently when you're trying to oust a sitting President of the other party apparently). The right made the debt an issue, so the left has to defend itself from the attack that it is responsible for it, that's why you see the defense of who is responsible for the debt, and since most people here who are on the left don't really know much about the way the federal budget works, I felt the need to point out how ridiculous this current Republican talking point is.

  34. #69
    guitarjosh
    guitarjosh's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-25-07
    Posts: 5,182

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaudius View Post
    Frankly the left blaming W Bush for the debt is a response to the right blaming Obama for it. No one was really talking about the debt under W Bush, so there was no reason to bring it up by the right just like no one was really talking about the debt in 1992, so there was no reason for the left to bring it up. Cheney said it himself, "deficits don't matter"(except apparently when you're trying to oust a sitting President of the other party apparently). The right made the debt an issue, so the left has to defend itself from the attack that it is responsible for it, that's why you see the defense of who is responsible for the debt, and since most people here who are on the left don't really know much about the way the federal budget works, I felt the need to point out how ridiculous this current Republican talking point is.
    The left has been blaming the GOP for running up the debt since Obama was in college. They talked a lot about it while W was president, and if you asked any left winger to summarize Reagan's presidency, they would mention the debt. Of course, a lot of that was due to the reasons the debt increased so much under Obama, but the left will never admit that.
    175 pts

    3-QUESTION
    SBR TRIVIA WINNER 11/21/2022


  35. #70
    Balco10
    Balco10's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-11-10
    Posts: 5,480
    Betpoints: 204

    He did this in his first year. This guy is worst than Jimmy Carter!

First 12
Top