You have to go way back where it all started. Nixon and Greenspan.
Over the years since, U.S. governments neglected her watch dog role
on financial establishments. This is the result we are in now.
Err, Greenspan was mathematician.
**This is the same Greenspan that was shocked! shocked!!! when the
****hit the fan in Fall 2008 He's on record saying that he thought
the market would work.
**That's what the Bush and Obama admins. get for hiring Libertarians
and keeping them on for so long Head up his ***, or rather up his
True, much of this started with Nixon, but Reagan really got the ball
rolling by, inter alia, starting to break the labor movement. The
real culprits are Roger Ailes and the other far-far-far-Right crooks
that have transformed the Republican party into something Eisenhower
would not recognize.
Reagan restored respect for America in the world. We
were no longer being held hostage by the likes of Iran.
His strategy for DEFEATING the Soviet Union, which
included that military buildup, worked beyond anyones
wildest dreams. And he did it while
everyone, Nixon/Kissinger, George Will, Ted Kennedy, was
telling him he was wrong.
The Soviet Union is on the ash heap of history. Hundreds
of millions are freed. Even Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative
like remarkable foresight, given what's going on in Iran and North
Korea. Long live the truth!
What we had at the end of his term was a booming economy that
went on to be the marvel of the world. And a country that stood tall
in the world and defeated the Soviet Union. Perhaps you missed it.
Inflation was demolished, interest rates which were at 18% for
US Bonds were more than cut in half. That period of prosperity
extended to today.
If by ruining the future, you're harping about the increase in the
national debt, I suggest you take a look at the facts. The deficits
Reagan ran were within the norm as a percent of GCP. They
did not put an unreasonable burden on the economy. Also,
given the deficits we have today under Obama,
clearly the deficits of today
had nothing to do with what Reagan did 30 years ago. Libs
like to pretend that the Reagan tax cuts created deficits. In
reality, revenue doubled during his term. Yes, spending grew
even faster, but you should also consider that Republicans
never had control of the House during the Reagan years and
only had control of the Senate for part of it. Given the whining
we're hearing from Obama about how he can't get anything
done despite having had control of both houses of Congress
for 2 years, what Reagan accomplished is quite remarkable.
Perhaps it's the Democrat party that you should worry
about people no longer recognizing, as evidenced by the
debacle in the last election. Democrats like Kennedy
who cut taxes and was strong on defense are long gone.
Now the Democrat party is the home of loon socialists
What's good about it? It starts out with total bias and a clear
"And that is after payment of the taxes that the superrich and their
Republican apologists find so onerous."
Like the super rich don't also support and contribute huge amounts to
the Dems? Both parties get huge contributions from the wealthy.
Obama regularly goes to $35K a seat
fund raisers. And that both parties then are beholden to
The rest of it is a bunch of nonsense too. Like attributing the fact
that lawyers earnings grew substantially over the last 3 decades to
Reagan deregulation? WTF?
1. Greed is good.
2. First there was "Global Warming" to get those with nothing going in their
life all exercised. That became "Climate Change" as the AGW premise was
adequately challenged. Now it's "Climate Chaos" as a diminished number of
supporters try to salvage the concept.
Those that were disillusioned drifted until they glommed on to the "Income
Disparity" movement. In a few months, they'll all be agitating for the
criminalization of "Parrot Plucking" or painting your house in horrid colors
3. I'm personally agnostic on the subject of "wealth redistribution." If,
somehow, we could make it happen, in only a few months the country's wealth
would be back to its original condition.
It's been going on since the begining of time. BFD
There will always be rich and there will always be poor.
Life is not fair and everybody is not equal.
But everybody has the same opportunities to make a better life for
It's *their* choice to make on how they live their life.
This class warfare shit is complete bullshit and the gvmnt can"t do
anything to change it.
All the gvmnt is doing is distracting peoples attention and making them
mad at rich people while they(gvmnt) screw you while you're not looking
OR...we could end up like CUBA where the entire friggen country is
dirt poor, 50+ years behind the rest of the world and now trying to
figure out how to get people off the government dole and back to work.
In my mind is has always been about an equal opportunity to persue
happiness which doesn't mean equal opportunity to be rich. I know a
lot of very happy and fulfilled people who aren't even close to being
The problem for most people is that by the time the realize it was
their choice (assuming they ever do) they have already made so many
bad choices that they have already determined their destiny. Many
more could change by making the right choices but are either too damn
lazy or would rather go through life blaming someone else.
But that won't keep the morons from trying and screwing up everything
in the process.
What happened to Cuba. We lost Cuba after winning it from Spanish.
We exploited her real bad. All the American companies making $$$ on
sugar and fruit. And Nickel mining to make artillery shells/bombs
during WW II. They only bribed Batista and his cronies. Never paid a
dime as tax.When Castro tried organizing union at Ni mine they tried to
get rid of him. No wonder. The rest is history. We are good at making
friend into enemy. At peak time they shipped 1.3 million tons of sugar
States side per month procude dirt cheap using Jamaican, Haitian labor.
Forty percent (actually 36%, but who's counting) of all revenue collected by
the federal government in the form of income taxes.
I don't think Buffet ever said "tax me more." What he said was he paid a
lower rate than his secretary. That is because his income comes from capital
gains, not wages. Oh, by the way, the IRS is suing his company for some
enormous sum in unpaid taxes.
As an aside, I believe Ross Perot pays not income taxes either. His income
is derived solely from the interest on tax-free municipal bonds.
He also wasn't talking apples and oranges. Since at least one of his
Lts. was paying a rate 6% above the top rate, it looks like (1) nobody
is using the perk about tax planning he offers (2) they are including
taxes other than just federal income taxes. He specifically states, in
fact, that includes payroll (SS) taxes. He likely to pay less in total
taxes since he makes so much more than the SS cutoff, so it is a much
smaller of %age of his income. What the people who Take Umbrage at that
fail to mention is that the income cutoff for SS taxes is EXACTLY the
same as the cut off for benefits. They make it seem like the rich are
getting away with something. What is happening is that even if they make
$50 kajillion this year, their SS benefits won't be based on that
income, but rather only to the cutoff. If you think about, there is
already a type of means testing going on.
My CPA thinks that they have to be under the constitution, at least
those for municipal purposes.
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
I don't think Buffett pays ANY SS taxes, simply because he has no WAGES. All
his income (if memory serves) is from capital gains on which there is no
payroll taxes. One wonders what he'll do for retirement...
I worry about him.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.