And yes, Democrats think anybody making $75K or more is rich and just ripe for more taxes.
This is false. Kerry promised to restore ONLY the top tax bracket to the previous higher tax rate. Those would be people making over $326,450. In addition, Democrats in general have no coherent tax policy and because congress is run by Republicans, have been relegated to opposing the idiotic Bush tax cuts however they can.
In addition, because of the policies of George Bush, the ultra-rich can pay themselves in options and stock and only pay a maximum tax of 15%. UNDERSTAND THIS VERY IMPORTANT POINT! A tax cut for the rich is a HIDDEN tax increase for the working class. Government debts do not get paid by magic, and eventually someone WILL have to pay down the national debt.
In 1924 the top tax rate was 46%. In 1925 the top tax rate was slashed to 25% and then to 24% in 1929. In 1921 the top capital gains rate was 73%. In 1922 the capital gains tax rate was slashed to 12.5% and stayed there until the worst of the depression in 1933.
Wealth disparity DOES matter and CAN destroy the economy.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Where is the falsehood in my statement on Republicans, Deadhorse? Are you actually denying that the Rich living off dividends enjoy a fantastic tax cut, whilst my 401k got zilcho?
And regarding Democrats... again, to them anyone with Income is Rich. He11, Clinton tax hiked single people making $30,000 per year. Talk is cheap.
Regaring the Bush tax cuts, he's probably done more damage to the health and security of this country than any president in history. His total disregard to fiscal responsibility, his HEAVILY biased tax policy benefitting the ultra-rich and corporations, and his other "accomplishments" such as the worst bankruptcy reform ever conceived will drive us into a new depression and economic collapse.
What does this make me? A CONSERVATIVE! Does a reduction in deficit spending and smaller government sound familiar? These are CONSERVATIVE policies that were practiced by Bill Clinton and totally ignored by a supposedly Republican president. Politics is not a football game. You DO NOT cheer for your team when it is systematically destroying all the values it pretends to adhere to.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Nah. People actually paying their bills is a good thing. Total mean-spirited and whineable, to be sure, but darn it the ol' trips to Cancun and the beerbashes can't stay free forever.
And regarding Democrats... again, to them anyone with Income is Rich. He11, Clinton tax hiked single people making $30,000 per year. Talk is cheap.
This just shows the mythology and outright lies that have been brainwashed into Americans by the Republican right. I'm disgusted every time I hear it.
Facts: In 1993 Bill Clinton raised federal income taxes for the first and only time. His tax increases ONLY affected the top two tax brackets. Single individuals making over $115,000 per year saw a marginal increase to 36%, and single individuals making over $250,000 per year saw the top bracket increased to 39.6%. People making $30,000 were untouched.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Nawww....I'm just pointing out that anyone can find an extreme example of a single teacher out of line then make blanket statments that are totally untrue for the majority of schools. The claim that 50% of the school day is devoted to social engineering is just stupid and has no basis in truth.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Regarding "You can only gain wealth at the expense of others", this is not true. Your analysis if flawed.
(1) Although wealth is tied to GDP, it is not identical. Wealth creation is more tied to savings (if correctly defined) than it is to GDP. For example, a country may have an increasing GDP, but may squander this GDP -- e.g. -- Germany during WW2. While this is an extreme example, it is critical to appreciate that wealth creation involves more factors than GDP.
(2) Even if I were to accept that GDP is correlated to wealth, the fact that Fed policies tend to keep GDP growth in a 2 - 4 % range does not lead to your conclusion. (at first glance, it does sound like a tautology -- if growth is fixed at 3 %, then one person's income can only increase faster than 3 % if someone elses grows at less than 3 %). There are many flaws in this logic:
(a) The Fed does not target a GDP growth rate per se. The system is not as fixed and inflexible as suggested by your logic.
(b) The Fed has limited control over the economy. Your logic suggests that Fed's actions have a highly precise cause and effect relationship on economic growth. The Fed's effect is in truth indirect, partial, and difficult to measure over time.
(c) Further, innovation that materially enhances productivity will reduce inflationary pressures, and allow greater economic growth. Individuals facilitating these innovations can enhance their wealth without taking away from others.
(3) The system is not as closed, as your analysis suggests, and is much more complex than your analysis suggests. It is not closed, in part, because the US has material involvement in the global economy. Your theory fails even as it applies to the US in isolation, for the reasons given above, but fails even further in a global context, because there is no organization controlling growth as you suggest.
(4a) There are ways for an individual to create wealth than will never show up in the National accounts. The example you give regarding making a tree into a chair is incorrect. You are missing the value added that occur in building the chair. (ie, the chair should be worth much more than the tree -- the tree is cheap to replace, but the intellectual capital of the woodworker created value). Let me give a somewhat more elaborate example. Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones walk past a very high end furniture showroom, and see a beautifully crafted desk in the window. Mr. Smith walks in, asks the price, and learns it is $ 25,000. He has a typical middle class wage, and knows he can never afford it. He does not buy it, and continues to spend his weekends watching TV. Mr. Smith creates no value above what he contributes at work 5 days a week. Mr. Jones also has a middle class income, but upon learning the price of the desk, decides he will take up furniture making. He is resourceful, talented, and artistic. Instead of spending his weekends watching TV, he reads about wood, woodworking, furniture making, etc. He visits some leading artisans and talks to them He practices on some scrap wood. Finally, one day he goes into the forest, chooses an appropriate oak tree, cuts it down, cures the wood, and builds the desk. Mr. Jones has absolutely created net wealth [the value of the desk is far more than the value of the tree he cut down] without taking from any other person.
(4b) In your original assertion, but especially in the example of the tree, you are in essence assuming that an economy is a zero-sum game. This was believed by many in medieval times, and seems to underpin behavior in much of the third world (especially the Middle East, where wealth is so tied to oil, and ownership of oil is close to a zero-sum game). However, the advances in Western economies over the past 200 years have been linked very substantially to the realization that economies are not zero-sum games --- that wealth creation by one individual often enhances the wealth creation potential of others, as intellectual capital is passed from person to person. Value-added innovations by one individual can leverage the wealth of many. This is arguably the most important concept in understanding national wealth and wealth creation.
In any case, it is very definitely possible for one person, or a group of persons, to create wealth in the United States without taking from others.
<< <i>Nawww....I'm just pointing out that anyone can find an extreme example of a single teacher out of line then make blanket statments that are totally untrue for the majority of schools. The claim that 50% of the school day is devoted to social engineering is just stupid and has no basis in truth. >>
Bullcrap!
I see it everyday. Have you read a recent textbook? Revisionism is a form of social engineering. My statement is based on nothing but the truth. It even seeps into math and the manner in which problems are presented.
"Lenin is certainly right. There is no subtler or more severe means of overturning the existing basis of society(destroy capitalism) than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
<< <i>And yes, Democrats think anybody making $75K or more is rich and just ripe for more taxes.
This is false. Kerry promised to restore ONLY the top tax bracket to the previous higher tax rate. Those would be people making over $326,450. In addition, Democrats in general have no coherent tax policy and because congress is run by Republicans, have been relegated to opposing the idiotic Bush tax cuts however they can.
In addition, because of the policies of George Bush, the ultra-rich can pay themselves in options and stock and only pay a maximum tax of 15%. UNDERSTAND THIS VERY IMPORTANT POINT! A tax cut for the rich is a HIDDEN tax increase for the working class. Government debts do not get paid by magic, and eventually someone WILL have to pay down the national debt. >>
John Kerry was a liar! His own web page laid out an entirely different tax program than the one he talked about. He certainly intended to raise taxes on single people earning 75K and couples at 90K.
A progresive tax system is the basis for socialism. When Jimmy Carter was finally shown the door, the top rate was at 70% and you saw how well the economy was running under his guidance.
I have no idea what some people consider ultra-rich, but I do know that when I compared Al Gore's tax proposal to George Bush's back in 2000, I saw that Al was going to take an extra 21K from me. How do you think I voted? I'm far from ultra rich by anybody's definition.
Further, what's wrong with people keeping what they make? To begin with, the founding fathers never intended for there to be an income tax and I still believe it is unconstitutional. The only fair tax is just that, a fair one. Everybody pays the same percentage. That I could accept.
Where does this concept that some people should pay a higher percentage come from? Sounds like the public indoctrination schools are having the desired effect. It's real easy to get Paul's vote when you are robbing Peter to pay Paul for it. 50% of the people in this country pay virtually no taxes at all, how is that fair in the land of the free?
What would be accomplished by destroying the top 10% of wage earners that the Democrats constantly demonize?
"Lenin is certainly right. There is no subtler or more severe means of overturning the existing basis of society(destroy capitalism) than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
1) For all practical purposes, the GDP IS wealth creation. I don't understand what relevance your example of WWII Germany has either. Weapons can be considered wealth the same as any other product, and using them is consumption the same as eating a piece of bread. All you can say about Germany is that they created wealth extremely fast, then consumed that wealth just as quick. This doesn't contradict my point at all.
2) The federal reserve has sloppy control over the economy, but that doesn't change what I'm saying either. The government will act to limit growth when necessary, and historically they've been very capable of doing so.
3) If the US isn't a closed system, the planet certainly is. It doesn't violate my rule of not being able to create wealth unless it's at the expense of someone else.
4) Adding value then selling a product is ALWAYS reflected in the GDP because that's what the GDP is........production and consumption of products in the USA. Adding value then using it yourself is the only exception to the rule. Most of us are not capable of creating 99% of what we own and use, therefore the wealth created that does not register in the GDP will always be limited to very small projects that we produce, keep, and use. You can make your chair, you can sit in it, but you cannot sell it and gain money unless you take that money from someone else. If the total chair consumption of your closed system is 1, then you've just put the other chair maker out of business.
It is a zero sum game. Don't believe free market economy advocates that want to enslave you.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
John Kerry was a liar! His own web page laid out an entirely different tax program than the one he talked about. He certainly intended to raise taxes on single people earning 75K and couples at 90K.
John Kerry isn't the Democratic party, but John Kerry said he'd only increase the top tax bracket. I can't challenge your assertion that his web site said differently because I cannot find this web site you speak of. However if you measure taxes by SPENDING instead of REVENUE as most intelligent people would, then George Bush has raised taxes more than any individual in the history of the world.
A progresive tax system is the basis for socialism. When Jimmy Carter was finally shown the door, the top rate was at 70% and you saw how well the economy was running under his guidance
I thought I put this lie to rest. A progressive tax system IS NOT SOCIALISM!!!! If you are incapable of finding out what socialism REALLY means then you are incapable of having an intelligent conversation and should leave the discussion. Character assassination, in this case calling Carter a socialist, is ethically corrupt and one of the favorite tools of the radical uneducated right wing. Stop being dishonest!! Your second point, that a 70% top tax bracket caused a poor economy in the late 70's is pretty much nonsense. We had a top marginal tax rate of 90% after World War II and enjoyed the greatest economic boom until that time. From 1926 until 1929 the top marginal tax rate was 25% leading up to the worst despression in world history!!!!!! These are facts, look them up yourself. Supply side is FRAUD and people who advocate it are lying to you.
Where does this concept that some people should pay a higher percentage come from? Sounds like the public indoctrination schools are having the desired effect. It's real easy to get Paul's vote when you are robbing Peter to pay Paul for it. 50% of the people in this country pay virtually no taxes at all, how is that fair in the land of the free?
Do you really want to know??? I came from the Great Depression. In the 1930's it was decided that the depression was in part caused by huge wealth disparity, and public tax policy should be used to discourage such a lopsided economy. Prior to the 1930s, we had a depression about once every 20 years. After the new deal, we haven't had an economic depression since. I hope I'm not bothering you with too many facts...........
What would be accomplished by destroying the top 10% of wage earners that the Democrats constantly demonize?
Pure unfiltered hysteria. If you pretend that someone will DESTROY the upper class, then anything you've said prior MUST be true. Would Bill Gates be any less upper class if tax policy limited him to 1 billion dollars instead of 50 billion? Of course not. Remember people, MODERATION.........don't listen to idiotic hype.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I am happy to allow Higashiyama to take over the argument. I could only come up with 2 (c) in his well presented argument. We need to also talk about the value added by global trade.... but perhaps that would piss too many people off... Sigh.
My grandfather, Merle Curti, wrote a US High School textbook on US History. It was adopted by several states. Each year or three he was asked to revise his textbook. This was because the publisher could see that people were putting political pressure on various issues. This pressure changed over time. Civil Rights. Equal Rights for Women. Then several other issues. He was happy to refuse to revise his high school history textbook to mention creationism. So his high school text book was banned in some southern state. He was OK with that.
The thing is that a High School History Textbook is really only a brief, terse, limited, overview of history. One can, and many do, spend their whole lives studying small issues raised by textbooks such as this.
Some very interesting points by Iwog, Higashiyama, Deadhorse and others. I have to read the last page again.
I might comment that GDP includes other things than just products produced in the USA. It also accounts for exports minus imports. Hence the imports making their way into the country far outweigh the exports. Government spending is included and we know that $2 Billion per day of this is being funded from overseas. Hardly cause for joy. But the GDP # "improves." Inflation also affects the GDP since a lower inflation number produces a higher GDP. Hence an understated CPI by 1% works to make the GDP look better by 1%.
This $2 Billion per day we borrow from overseas funds our increased standard of living at the expense of the rest of the world. Re. Iwog's zero sum game.
To get back on topic--- Govt data released this morning---
PPI -0.6% vs -0.2% consensus Core PPI +0.1% vs +0.2% consensus
While you may not agree with the way the govt compiles these numbers--I do not completely--- you must still use them. The bond market surely is using them pushing the 30yr yield to 4.41%. Up from 4.18% just last week. The dollar is stronger today. There has also been rumor that some major players in the currency market who have been short the dollar are covering--Buffett?. Not only are they covering but they are buying puts on other currencies. It appears the demise of the dollar has been exaggerated.
We don't have to use these numbers and the only reason the bond market is influenced by them is because it helps to predict the movement of the sheep. The bond markets knows exactly what the real inflation rate is. But if the herd is going by the posted the CPI and PPI numbers, then that is where the bond traders will go to make their trades.
The dollar market appears to be turning south and may well be trending back down for a while. At least that is what the charts are saying. The short term moves in the dollar are just fluff to divert our attention away from the real trend. The dollar will continue to fall in the long term another 20-30%. It's inevitable. Of course there will be rallys along the way, as will gold. But long term the dollar has lots more to correct to balance the abuses heaped upon it by the FED and US Treasury.
I thought I put this lie to rest. A progressive tax system IS NOT SOCIALISM!!!! If you are incapable of finding out what socialism REALLY means then you are incapable of having an intelligent conversation and should leave the discussion. Character assassination, in this case calling Carter a socialist, is ethically corrupt and one of the favorite tools of the radical uneducated right wing.
According to Karl Marx, it's one of the basic tenets of socialism, but clearly you know more about it then he did. Gee, I'm incapable of understanding and incapable of intelligent conversation. I should leave the disscussion? Who elected you the moderator? I didn't call Carter a socialist, that is an asumption on your part. So far the only character assasination has come from you. I guess that makes you ethically corrupt. Not to mention a jerk as well. Radical uneducated right wing? You are a pompous elitist! I'm far from uneducated and you haven't got a clue to my politics.
Where does this concept that some people should pay a higher percentage come from? Sounds like the public indoctrination schools are having the desired effect. It's real easy to get Paul's vote when you are robbing Peter to pay Paul for it. 50% of the people in this country pay virtually no taxes at all, how is that fair in the land of the free?
Do you really want to know??? I came from the Great Depression. In the 1930's it was decided that the depression was in part caused by huge wealth disparity, and public tax policy should be used to discourage such a lopsided economy. Prior to the 1930s, we had a depression about once every 20 years. After the new deal, we haven't had an economic depression since. I hope I'm not bothering you with too many facts...........
It was decided? Just as simple as that? Why? because you say so? By whom? FDR? The man responsible for the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of the world. It was perfect as the victims hadn't been born yet.
Too many facts? I thought I was incapable of even being in this discussion. No, I haven't seen too many facts yet, so don't trouble yourself over it. I'll manage to get by somehow. Tax policy is used by politicians to punish their enemies and enrich their friends. That's pretty much been a Democrat game as they had control for 50 freaking years!!
What would be accomplished by destroying the top 10% of wage earners that the Democrats constantly demonize?
Pure unfiltered hysteria. If you pretend that someone will DESTROY the upper class, then anything you've said prior MUST be true. Would Bill Gates be any less upper class if tax policy limited him to 1 billion dollars instead of 50 billion? Of course not. Remember people, MODERATION.........don't listen to idiotic hype.
I asked you a question, you respond with nonsense and have yet to address my pertinent issues. I'm learning not to listen to your idiotic hype.
Now you talk of limiting people's assets? You make a plea to the "people", don't listen to this. That's sad and desperate. What do you have to fear if people listen?
Why did you have to resort to the personal attacks? That's generally the first resort when you don't have the answer to the question, attack the questioner.
"Lenin is certainly right. There is no subtler or more severe means of overturning the existing basis of society(destroy capitalism) than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
Let me first point out that you didn't include a single number or fact in your entire LONG post. Not one........you've provided absolutely no support for any of your assertions. Now let me handle a few individual rants.......
According to Karl Marx, it's one of the basic tenets of socialism
Just because Karl Marx advocated a heavily progressive tax system doesn't mean that socialism is BASED on a progressive tax. Socialism is government owned industry and the abolishment of private property AS DEFINED IN WEBSTER. Furthermore you UTTERLY IGNORED my two examples of a top tax rate both higher and lower than during Carter. YOUR ARGUMENT was that a 70% top tax rate caused the Carter recession yet when I pointed out that in post World War II America the top tax rate was 90% (boom economy) and in 1929 it was 25% (Biggest depression in world history) You IGNORE it!!!!! Answer these examples before you answer anything else. You remind me of someone who's pointing out the paint on my car is red instead of orange after trying to argue that it was a mule..........
It was decided? Just as simple as that? Why? because you say so? By whom? FDR? The man responsible for the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of the world. It was perfect as the victims hadn't been born yet.
This one is REALLY bizzare........you first try to invalidate my point, then you VALIDATE my point by naming the man responsible. For god sake man, figure out what you're trying to argue before you type a sentence. You answered the first part of your own question by naming FDR. The second answer is of course congress.
I asked you a question, you respond with nonsense and have yet to address my pertinent issues. I'm learning not to listen to your idiotic hype. This was your question: What would be accomplished by destroying the top 10% of wage earners that the Democrats constantly demonize?
First I'll answer it. Nothing is accomplised by destroying the top 10% of wage earners. (By the way, you've totally ignored every single question I've put to you so far) Your premise that ANYONE wants to "Destroy" the top 10% of wage earners is absurd and therefore makes it really really childish to begin with. There is no policy proposed by anyone that seeks to destroy ANY wage earners so once again I point out that what you say is hype, designed to inspire hatred of the left, and not worth the electrons it was printed on.
Why did you have to resort to the personal attacks? That's generally the first resort when you don't have the answer to the question, attack the questioner.
Non-sequitur, not an argument, and simply a diversion from the topic.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
<< <i>Why did you have to resort to the personal attacks? That's generally the first resort when you don't have the answer to the question, attack the questioner.
Non-sequitur, not an argument, and simply a diversion from the topic. >>
I agree, that's why I asked you why you resorted to it. It says alot about you.
You say you came from the depression? What, are you 85 years old?
It's late, I'll try my best to address your other issues tomorrow. I know, you think I'm too stupid or uneducated to do that and you don't think I belong in this discussion. But shucks, I'll study up on some fancy words in the mean time and try my best.
BTW, didn't you get it? I was making fun of anyone who thinks FDR did a good thing by creating the social security welfare system. Make no mistake, it is welfare and once they begin the means testing it takes away what fragile arguement to the contrary that still exists.
I guess your memory is slipping, it was Al Gore who preached and ranted long and furiously about the top 10% of wage earners and what he was going to do to them. Yes, he did intend to destroy them through taxes. He figured he could fool enough of those who don't pay taxes to punish the successfull. Class warfare at it's worst.
"Lenin is certainly right. There is no subtler or more severe means of overturning the existing basis of society(destroy capitalism) than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
No taxation system put in place in the U.S. can EVER solve our current problems!
Lets forget about taxation for just a minute, and talk about confiscation. No communism, no socialism, lets just round up everyone with any decent net worth take everything they have, and ship them all to start over in some hell hole in Africa.
“The number of U.S. millionaires in 2004 reached an all-time high of 7.5 million with this sizable increase, including 740,000 who surpass the $5 million threshold.
In terms of the overall affluent market, which comprises households with a net worth of $500,000 or more, excluding primary residence, 25% growth in 2004 brought the total to 13.1 million.
According to the latest figures, the number of high net worth individuals included 2.7 million in North America with a total of $9.3 trillion in assets. The study includes what it termed “ultra high net worth individuals,” who have at least $30 million plus in financial assets.”
So all the Billionaires, and all the millionaires, and all the folks with at least $500,000 will net us in the neighborhood of 10.5 trillion, lets call it 11 trillion in case we left anyone out.
The current, on the books, U.S. debt is 7 trillion 775 billion dollars. In the next ten years another 20 trillion can be added to that for unfunded liabilities in S.C., Medicare, pension liabilities, etc. This gives us a total of a minimum of 27 trillion 775 billion.
If we confiscate all of the money from anyone with any perception of wealth with a net worth of $500,000 up, during the next ten years we are short by say 16 plus Trillion PLUS INTEREST.
So how far down the ladder do we go to confiscate all the money we need to pay our debts?
So how far down the ladder do we go to confiscate all the money we need to pay our debts?
The answer is simple. IF we had continued the policies of Bill Clinton and eliminated deficit spending, we could have grown our way out of the national debt in a few decades. Clinton raised taxes for the top two tax brackets and was rewarded with a boom economy and a balanced budget. For everyone who hates Bill Clinton, he actually DID reduce spending and reduce or eliminate government programs. Bill Clinton was a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.
George Bush is a fiscal liberal who has grown the government more than any leader in the history of the world. If this continues, you can expect dire results on our economy.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
“The answer is simple. IF we had continued the policies of Bill Clinton and eliminated deficit spending, we could have grown our way out of the national debt in a few decades.”
The problem that most Clintonites have is that they point to the fact that Clinton did in fact have a balanced ANNUAL budget for a couple of years. This real does nothing for the over all debt, and he was still spending all of the S.C., Medicare, government pension monies to make claim to balancing the budget.
Mr. Clinton added 1.5 trillion to the deficit while he was in office, that is a fact that can easily seen just by going to the on line gov. debt website.
You cannot borrow money from all these TRUST funds put the money in the annual budget and make claim to having a balanced budget.
As the numbers clearly show NO tax is possible to balance our current and coming liabilities.
Deadhorse, is exactly correct when he calls all these program ponzie schemes. These ponzie schemes are going to max out in the next decade and no amount of tax will cure those schemes. FORGET taxation it would take confiscation of everyone’s assets that had a net worth of $100,000 or more just to keep up.
Yes right now the whole World is buying all of our debt but where is the limit? Will they still be buyers in a few years when the on the books debt is 15 trillion?
Even Standard and Poors, Moody’s, et. Al. agrees that U.S. treasuries should be classified as JUNK bonds.
Will they still be buyers in a few years when the on the books debt is 15 trillion
Yes. Just as they did 50 years ago when the debt was 500 million which at the time sounded astonomical.
The dollar market appears to be turning south and may well be trending back down for a while. At least that is what the charts are saying. The short term moves in the dollar are just fluff to divert our attention away from the real trend. The dollar will continue to fall in the long term another 20-30%. It's inevitable. Of course there will be rallys along the way, as will gold. But long term the dollar has lots more to correct to balance the abuses heaped upon it by the FED and US Treasury
I have attached a chart of the dollar over the past 15 years. I dont see where it is turning south right now. It may be slightly overbought though having bounced 10% in the last few months. It has also bounced from MAJOR support near 80. It will take ALOT to break that support. I dont see another currency coming in to replace the dollar. Europe has too many problems so that leaves the YEN. This is a possiblity but I doubt it.
You expect another 20-30% decline. That would put the dollar under the 80 support level. I dont see that happening, but if it does your estimate will be conservative.
Of further note...Gold has been showing relative strength against the other currencies of late. Notice that gold hasnt really been hit as the dollar has strengthend. That bodes well for the yellow metal.
Wait until the AMT hits everyone. Bush will be thankful there are term limits when the next President inherits that mess.
A dirty secret is that the Bush tax cut was mostly eaten up by the AMT for those earning $150k to $350k, so he got credit for cutting taxes without really cutting them for a lot of high earners.
Buffett has made a lot of mistakes -- and he will admit it. His USAir preferred shares were one of his biggest dogs. And he is taking it on the chin with the GeRe/AIG reinsurance scandal.
Not everyone is right all of the time, even the Oracle of Omaha!!
Hmmm. the guy who says clinton is a conservative and he didn't raise my taxes on my $33k income... says others are uneducated?
Bill Clinton and congress raised taxes in 1993 for the top two tax brackets. That was the only income tax increase during his two terms. Do you think I'm wrong? Do you mind showing me some evidence? I've been posting tons of facts and examples, it seems my detractors are incapable of doing the same.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Interesting article about Warren Buffett. The author, Jon D. Markman, shows his naked contempt for Mr. Buffet by describing him as a "noted Nebraska sourpuss" and at various points describing Buffett as "smug", "heaping scorn on our currency", and "thumbing his nose at the dollar".
What is so amazing however is that Warren Buffet established his currency position in 2002! (It's in the 2002 shareholder's letter) All you have to do is look at Cohodk's chart on the previous page to see what an amazing and accurate prediction was made. Even if Berkshire-Hathaway sold its foreign currency position at the top of this current upswing, it would still mean huge profits and an incredibly successful investment on the part of Buffett. This currency trade was perhaps the best investment the company made in the last three years.
But go back and read the article..........according to Markman, Buffett is a loser who "has had his head handed to him by more experienced currency players." This is outright lying by the author and a yet another pathetic attempt to assassinate the character of an EXTREMELY successful social liberal who also happens to be the second richest capitalist in the world. (as I've said numerous times, liberalism is NOT socialism)
Jon Markman believes that politics is a football game and because he wants to defend his quarterback, he will warp the truth as much as he can get away with. After all, how DARE Buffett scold the Republican government to get the federal deficit under control. It's an outrage!
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Good points Iwog. The foreign currentcy hedge was actually a smart play that was twisted by the reporter!! I guess the whole Dan Rather thing has not deterred the media (left, right, or whatever) from insufficient fact checking.
Buffet was also criticized for Berkshire lagging the market during the 2000 tech bubble. Few criticized him in 2001.
Again, Buffet is not perfect, and has made many mistakes, but no one can match his long term record for success.
Buffett has obviously made a ton of money making accurate trades. I posted the article just to support the rumor that I posted yesterday.
He made a lot of money on the way down and is a patient investor. If he is covering his short then he believes the worse may be over for the dollar. He may very well be right again.
There's a rule in investing that says if your investment decision is based on certain fundamentals, and those fundamentals have not changed, then you should hold your position even if the price or certain uninformed trolls say otherwise.
Buffett shorted the dollar because deficit spending was rising every year, the trade deficit was rising every year, and the political trend in Washington was more tax cuts and greater fiscal irresponsibility.
So what's changed? Things have only gotten worse since 2002 so if the dollar was a good short then, it's an excellent short now. I guess the only argument you can make in favor of a rising dollar is that the rest of the world is relatively worse off, so maybe the dollar looks good by comparisson. If this is true, then ALL currencies will fall relative to a fixed measure of wealth. (Gold and silver) If this is the senario, then Buffett makes a ton of money on his silver stockpile and wins anyway.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Cohodk Buffet was a joke during the tech stock run because he didn't see a value and didn't join in the buying or losing buffet is a value buyer or investor all i can see now is just what was going on during the tech stoch run wait and see
BTW, didn't you get it? I was making fun of anyone who thinks FDR did a good thing by creating the social security welfare system. Make no mistake, it is welfare and once they begin the means testing it takes away what fragile arguement to the contrary that still exists.
I have to agree. FDR is probably one of the worst presidents in history both for starting the trend away from a supported currency and numerous socialistic programs and the blueprint for out of cotnrol spending. In the end, his programs did not pull us out of the depression, but rather the entry into WW2 did that. But GW is doing his best to destroy the US dollar and end up in the top 3. Move over FDR.
I don't agree that any president in the last few decades has decreased govt spending. Last time I checked the charts it has increased every year over the past 25 years. No one has kept it in check. The size of govt always increases, never decreases. And no president has balanced the budget in the past few decades as was already stated. Robbing from long term entitlements does not count.
Cohodk, the 20-30% decline I foresee in the dollar will not take it just below 80, but into the 60-70 range....maybe to 50. No amount of huffing and puffing is changing the fundamentals that have existed for the past several years. Every key fundamental for a dollar bear market is still intact long term. The dollar will make a high at some point and head back to 80, eventually breaking under 80. Until some fundamental changes in the economy a downward direction is all but assured. Right now the US dollar is running into major league resistance at the 88-90 level. Sure, it could go to 96. But at some point it will resume its long term drop as the redline on your chart shows (long term moving average = the major trend). I see no true indications that a dollar bull is underway. A secular bear market rally in the US dollar index is what is occurring.
Were you paying taxes in 1993 when Clinton's retroactive tax increase hit?
Prior to 1993, seniors paid taxes on half their Social Security benefits if their combined income exceeded $25,000 for individuals or $32,000 for couples. But in 1993, the portion of taxable Social Security benefits increased to 85%, as individuals with incomes above $34,000 and couples with incomes above $44,000 became subject to the higher rate of taxation.
Prior to 1993, seniors paid taxes on half their Social Security benefits if their combined income exceeded $25,000 for individuals or $32,000 for couples. But in 1993, the portion of taxable Social Security benefits increased to 85%, as individuals with incomes above $34,000 and couples with incomes above $44,000 became subject to the higher rate of taxation.
If I remember correctly, this only affected a very small percentage of social security recipients and it didn't affect anyone who earned a wage. If you're going to cite this one very specific example I suggest you explain the tax. Your comment:
Clinton tax hiked single people making $30,000 per year. Talk is cheap.
Is FALSE for the HUGE majority of Americans making $30,000 a year. Do you understand that you were wrong with regards to over 95% of the people in this country making $30,000 a year? This is dishonest in a political debate. As I said before, the proper analogy would be you make the point that my car is red instead of orange, when previously you were arguing it was a mule.
Since I pride myself in being accurate, I will amend my statement about Clinton's tax hike. Clinton only raised taxes for the top two tax brackets, with an exception being the change in social security rules which resulted in a small number of social security recipients having a higher tax rate. I really don't think this changes my point one bit.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I don't agree that any president in the last few decades has decreased govt spending. Last time I checked the charts it has increased every year over the past 25 years. No one has kept it in check. The size of govt always increases, never decreases.
It's proper that a government increases spending every year because the population and government obligations increase every year, and that doesn't even take into account inflation. The reason Bill Clinton was exceptional with respect to the budget is for two reasons:
#1 He correctly determined that if people were going to vote for a legislature that spent this much money, then they should be forced to pay the bill. Therefore he raised taxes on precisely the groups that HAVE THE MOST INFLUENCE ON THE GOVERNMENT. The upper class. Who do you think is going to all those fund raising dinners?
#2 After increasing revenues, he moderated spending and actually used his veto power to eliminate idiotic tax cuts put forward by the Republican legislature. The most disgusting and immoral of these was the estate tax repeal bill of 1999.
The result was that for the first time since 1969 we took in more money than we spent. The resulting faith in the US government's fiscal responsibility spurred foreign investment, interest rates dropped, and we had the lowest unemployment rate in recent memory. George W. Bush has trashed all of it.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I agree that if the dollar breaks 80 then all bets are off. The drop WILL BE fast and hard. I just dont see--on a relative basis--- that things are any different now than 20, 40, or 80 years ago. The discussions we are having are the same that our grandfathers bantered about.
So what's changed? Things have only gotten worse since 2002 so if the dollar was a good short then, it's an excellent short now. I guess the only argument you can make in favor of a rising dollar is that the rest of the world is relatively worse off, so maybe the dollar looks good by comparisson. If this is true, then ALL currencies will fall relative to a fixed measure of wealth. (Gold and silver) If this is the senario, then Buffett makes a ton of money on his silver stockpile and wins anyway
Buffett must certainly see some fundamental change. Like I mentioned earlier gold is beginning to show strength against the other major currencies.
The result was that for the first time since 1969 we took in more money than we spent. The resulting faith in the US government's fiscal responsibility spurred foreign investment, interest rates dropped, and we had the lowest unemployment rate in recent memory. George W. Bush has trashed all of it.
My opinion of Clinton is biased, since I dont like people who look me in the eyes and lie, but Bush has not changed any of your above comments.
1. Foreign investment is near all-time highs. 2. Interest rates are at the lowest levels in 40 years. 3. The unemployment rate is 5.1%. We are at nearly full employment and have the lowest unemployment rate among the largest industrialized countries. It is very difficult to get unemployment much lower because there is a population of undesirable workers. These people can never hold a job and are not looking for jobs. They are quite content in receiving their govt handouts.
First, it must be stated that the Clinton administration cooked the books. They were masters at it. One has to take that fact into account whenever anyone attempts to bring the impeached disbarred former president into any economic discussion. Maybe he taught Ken Lay during many of his stayovers in the Lincoln bedroom. Yes, I still wonder how he could rent out the people's property like that.
While my personal income took off in a meteoric manner a few years ago, I haven't forgotten what it was like when I made $35 - $40K back in the early 90's. Bill Clinton did indeed raise my taxes. I saw it in my paycheck stub and the bottom dollar and as a single parent of two teens, it hurt. It also taught me first hand that Clinton was a liar of the first degree, I seem to recall he promised me a middle class tax cut. Oh, but I forgot, it wasn't a tax increase, it was a contribution. What a pure scumbag piece of trash that man was and still is.
I don't know how anyone could defend a man who retroactively taxed the estates of dead people. Retroactive laws are unconstitutional but somehow retroactive income taxes(unconstitutional in themselves) aren't?
Clearly, someone has their head so far up Clinton's rear that their vision is beyond impaired.
I can balance your budget too, I just won't pay a lot of your bills. That's essentially what Clinton did when he gutted the military. But, since liberals hate the military, I suppose that was perfectly acceptable. So was selling our nuclear and missle technology for illegal campaign contributions from the Red Chinese Army.
The damage done to our nation by that man has yet to be totaled up, but if we survive to write the history books, Benedict Arnold will look like a patriot in comparison.
But hey, what do I know? I'm so damned uneducated that I shouldn't even be allowed in this discusssion, remember? Why, I'm so stupid that my long term investments are only up 65% over the last 30 months and I believe in silver and gold, which was the original topic here. I'm such a moron that I only managed to net 135K on one deal a bit over a year ago on silver bullion only. I'm not even counting that in the 65% mentioned earlier, that was a short term flip.
So, forgive me if I appear too stupid to keep up with the brilliant Clinton butt kisser.
"Lenin is certainly right. There is no subtler or more severe means of overturning the existing basis of society(destroy capitalism) than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
You stated that under Carter, the top tax rate was 70% resulting in a poor economy. I provided three examples: A 90% top tax rate post WWII that resulted in a huge boom economy. A 25% top tax rate that resulted in the Great Depression, and a Bill Clinton tax hike in 1993 which resulted in another economic boom lasting until the year 2000.
Are you going to admit you were wrong or are you going to totally ignore the facts to suit your own purposes? Why do you keep changing the topic from one of economics to a discussion of Bill Clinton's morality?
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I haven't forgotten what it was like when I made $35 - $40K back in the early 90's. Bill Clinton did indeed raise my taxes.
You're simply lying. I've provided the exact details of the 1993 Bill Clinton tax increase. Here is a link to further prove my point. I doubt it will matter because you'd rather endlessly repeat libel against the former president than to accept that perhaps you were wrong.
I don't know how anyone could defend a man who retroactively taxed the estates of dead people.
The Estate tax was passed over 80 years ago. It was eliminated before the Great Depression and was reinstituted by FDR. Claiming that Bill Clinton taxed the estates of dead people is simply insane, the law has been on the books for decades. If you'd stop talking in cliches for a few minutes, I'd be glad to explain why the estate tax is the MOST fair of all taxes and why the two richest men in the world are actively fighting Bush's attempts to eliminate it.
I can balance your budget too, I just won't pay a lot of your bills. That's essentially what Clinton did when he gutted the military.
Quite literally, you define "Gutting the military" as spending more on defense than the entire remaining world military budget combined. The lowest point was in 1997 when US military spending was over ONE QUARTER TRILLION DOLLARS! This position is utterly absurd.
The rest of your post was either bragging about making money, or inspiring hatred of Clinton without any economic basis at all.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I'm very tired of how the right wing lies to inspire hatred of the left. The assertion that "Clinton gutted the military" is repeated so often that a large number of people actually believe it. The TRUTH is that Clinton fully supported the military and most years MET or EXCEEDED his advisor's spending demads. As always, I'll provide support for my assertion. Remember that once the Cold War ended, some reduction in military spending was proper and expected. Here is a graph that shows exactly what I'm talking about:
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
<< <i>You stated that under Carter, the top tax rate was 70% resulting in a poor economy. I provided three examples: A 90% top tax rate post WWII that resulted in a huge boom economy. A 25% top tax rate that resulted in the Great Depression, and a Bill Clinton tax hike in 1993 which resulted in another economic boom lasting until the year 2000.
Are you going to admit you were wrong or are you going to totally ignore the facts to suit your own purposes? Why do you keep changing the topic from one of economics to a discussion of Bill Clinton's morality? >>
First, I wasn't wrong. Second, when you have been proven to be wrong you decide to "amend" your statements. Somehow you weren't wrong? How does that work? But I must admit, that is true Clintonian double speak in action. Are you at least admitting that Carter's 70% tax rate did damage the economy?
Clinton's tax hike had nothing to do with the boom of the 90s, that was due to Reagan's cuts which allowed for investment into R&R resulting in the tech boom. Clinton was fortunate to be president at the time, he inherited the economy that people mistakenly give him credit for. The economy succeded in spite of Clinton, not because of him. The current President inherited the Clinton recession which was caused by his tax programs. The chickens were finally coming home to roost and roosting chickens only result in a big pile of chickensh!t.
The end of the war resulted in a huge boom in industry which converted their war production to peacetime products. Radio and TV being a good example. Add in the GI bill and everybody could now afford a house and that added to all sorts of production and jobs to build said housing. The tax rate had nothing to do with it. Bet you didn't know that gutters, aluminum gutters didn't even exist till that GI Bill. That's an example of war production turning into peacetime products. In fact gutters at all were very rare on homes pre WWII.
I can't speak to the tax rates in the 20s, that was way before my time and frankly, I haven't studied that aspect of history in terms of the tax rate, only the trends that portend a similar fate in our near future.
Not changing the topic at all, just pointing out that one can't look at the lies and cooked books of the corrupt Clinton administration and conclude anything as fact. You keep using him as some sort of yardstick and I point out that it's based on lies. It's based on the most corrupt, immoral man to ever hold that office.
He didn't balance any budgets because the books were clearly cooked. Just like when FDR confiscated the citizen's gold at $15.50 an ounce and then after taking it all he revalued it at $35 and went on the radio to announce that he had increased the treasury by hundreds of millions of dollars and the sheep bought into his lies. That's pitiful, yet you defend such people.
BTW, I kept it right on topic with my addition of my personal investments in silver and gold. Tell me again how stupid and ignorant I am based on the gains I've made. Where did I go wrong, oh mighty elitist distributor of liberal nonsense?
BTW, that was not bragging at all!!! I took a lot of heat on this board for what I did and I didn't come back and rub anyone's noses in it. I haven't even mentioned it except in PMs up to this point. Though several posters have told me a should post about it, just to shut up the precious metals bashers. You should be ashamed of yourself for that cheap shot.
Just to keep you straight, I'm not a big fan of George Bush either. Very disappointed in him even though his parents live just a mile or so from me and I've run into George H. W. Bush a few times over the years. I'm not some sort of right wing fanatic as you have tried to paint me, far from it.
"Lenin is certainly right. There is no subtler or more severe means of overturning the existing basis of society(destroy capitalism) than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
I started out praising you for your insights, even though I didn't agree with all of them.
The minute I disagreed with you, you resorted to personal attacks.
You are an elitist of the worst kind. Nasty, self assured and pompous.
Ah, thanks for the supportive PMs folks. Yes, I agree with what has been said to me privately. Looks like some folks are reading this and just looking out for my best interests. This thread has indeed been taken over by socialist scumbags. Not my words, but the cummulative agreement it seems. I have to agree wholeheartedly.
"Lenin is certainly right. There is no subtler or more severe means of overturning the existing basis of society(destroy capitalism) than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
it is disappointing to see people argue about our last few presidents. it is obvious, that neither bush or clinton, was in office for the normal man/woman in america. both serve their masters, that of large businesses. That is how it has been, well forever.
As for FDR, he dealt with something most americans cannot comprehend. Can you imagine being so poor, so out of work, you thought yourself worthless?
As for WWII, america and england nearly screwed that up too. Thank god for the russians who gave their lives to stop germany. While we were more concerned with politics and money. We invaded North Africa and Italy first. Can you begin to understand how much that pissed off russia? God america is so full of itself. fricking history/newspapers/media content is warped beyond recognition.
f**k yes i am buying gold. the dollar will decline long term. Look at the prices you are paying for stuff.
I think we are passed the point where it can change. a financial collapse will finally wake up the sheep. it will be the new form of warfare instead of the cause.
I want a line drawn in the sand. How much do i have to be taxed before i plan for a revolution. where does it all end?
i would gladly spit in president bush's face. I would gladly kick each senator in the rear. 100-0 votes on certain bills makes them deserve it.
i am a country of one. buy gold. shed your dollars for true assets. /end rambling
Comments
This is false. Kerry promised to restore ONLY the top tax bracket to the previous higher tax rate. Those would be people making over $326,450. In addition, Democrats in general have no coherent tax policy and because congress is run by Republicans, have been relegated to opposing the idiotic Bush tax cuts however they can.
In addition, because of the policies of George Bush, the ultra-rich can pay themselves in options and stock and only pay a maximum tax of 15%. UNDERSTAND THIS VERY IMPORTANT POINT! A tax cut for the rich is a HIDDEN tax increase for the working class. Government debts do not get paid by magic, and eventually someone WILL have to pay down the national debt.
In 1924 the top tax rate was 46%. In 1925 the top tax rate was slashed to 25% and then to 24% in 1929.
In 1921 the top capital gains rate was 73%. In 1922 the capital gains tax rate was slashed to 12.5% and stayed there until the worst of the depression in 1933.
Wealth disparity DOES matter and CAN destroy the economy.
Where is the falsehood in my statement on Republicans, Deadhorse? Are you actually denying that the Rich living off dividends enjoy a fantastic tax cut, whilst my 401k got zilcho?
And regarding Democrats... again, to them anyone with Income is Rich. He11, Clinton tax hiked single people making $30,000 per year. Talk is cheap.
What does this make me? A CONSERVATIVE! Does a reduction in deficit spending and smaller government sound familiar? These are CONSERVATIVE policies that were practiced by Bill Clinton and totally ignored by a supposedly Republican president. Politics is not a football game. You DO NOT cheer for your team when it is systematically destroying all the values it pretends to adhere to.
Nah. People actually paying their bills is a good thing. Total mean-spirited and whineable, to be sure, but darn it the ol' trips to Cancun and the beerbashes can't stay free forever.
This just shows the mythology and outright lies that have been brainwashed into Americans by the Republican right. I'm disgusted every time I hear it.
Facts: In 1993 Bill Clinton raised federal income taxes for the first and only time. His tax increases ONLY affected the top two tax brackets. Single individuals making over $115,000 per year saw a marginal increase to 36%, and single individuals making over $250,000 per year saw the top bracket increased to 39.6%. People making $30,000 were untouched.
(1) Although wealth is tied to GDP, it is not identical. Wealth creation is more tied to savings (if correctly defined) than it is to GDP. For example, a country may have an increasing GDP, but may squander this GDP -- e.g. -- Germany during WW2. While this is an extreme example, it is critical to appreciate that wealth creation involves more factors than GDP.
(2) Even if I were to accept that GDP is correlated to wealth, the fact that Fed policies tend to keep GDP growth in a 2 - 4 % range does not lead to your conclusion. (at first glance, it does sound like a tautology -- if growth is fixed at 3 %, then one person's income can only increase faster than 3 % if someone elses grows at less than 3 %). There are many flaws in this logic:
(a) The Fed does not target a GDP growth rate per se. The system is not as fixed and inflexible as suggested by your logic.
(b) The Fed has limited control over the economy. Your logic suggests that Fed's actions have a highly precise cause and effect relationship on economic growth. The Fed's effect is in truth indirect, partial, and difficult to measure over time.
(c) Further, innovation that materially enhances productivity will reduce inflationary pressures, and allow greater economic growth. Individuals facilitating these innovations can enhance their wealth without taking away from others.
(3) The system is not as closed, as your analysis suggests, and is much more complex than your analysis suggests. It is not closed, in part, because the US has material involvement in the global economy. Your theory fails even as it applies to the US in isolation, for the reasons given above, but fails even further in a global context, because there is no organization controlling growth as you suggest.
(4a) There are ways for an individual to create wealth than will never show up in the National accounts. The example you give regarding making a tree into a chair is incorrect. You are missing the value added that occur in building the chair. (ie, the chair should be worth much more than the tree -- the tree is cheap to replace, but the intellectual capital of the woodworker created value). Let me give a somewhat more elaborate example. Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones walk past a very high end furniture showroom, and see a beautifully crafted desk in the window. Mr. Smith walks in, asks the price, and learns it is $ 25,000. He has a typical middle class wage, and knows he can never afford it. He does not buy it, and continues to spend his weekends watching TV. Mr. Smith creates no value above what he contributes at work 5 days a week. Mr. Jones also has a middle class income, but upon learning the price of the desk, decides he will take up furniture making. He is resourceful, talented, and artistic. Instead of spending his weekends watching TV, he reads about wood, woodworking, furniture making, etc. He visits some leading artisans and talks to them He practices on some scrap wood. Finally, one day he goes into the forest, chooses an appropriate oak tree, cuts it down, cures the wood, and builds the desk. Mr. Jones has absolutely created net wealth [the value of the desk is far more than the value of the tree he cut down] without taking from any other person.
(4b) In your original assertion, but especially in the example of the tree, you are in essence assuming that an economy is a zero-sum game. This was believed by many in medieval times, and seems to underpin behavior in much of the third world (especially the Middle East, where wealth is so tied to oil, and ownership of oil is close to a zero-sum game). However, the advances in Western economies over the past 200 years have been linked very substantially to the realization that economies are not zero-sum games --- that wealth creation by one individual often enhances the wealth creation potential of others, as intellectual capital is passed from person to person. Value-added innovations by one individual can leverage the wealth of many. This is arguably the most important concept in understanding national wealth and wealth creation.
In any case, it is very definitely possible for one person, or a group of persons, to create wealth in the United States without taking from others.
<< <i>Nawww....I'm just pointing out that anyone can find an extreme example of a single teacher out of line then make blanket statments that are totally untrue for the majority of schools. The claim that 50% of the school day is devoted to social engineering is just stupid and has no basis in truth. >>
Bullcrap!
I see it everyday. Have you read a recent textbook? Revisionism is a form of social engineering. My statement is based on nothing but the truth. It even seeps into math and the manner in which problems are presented.
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
<< <i>And yes, Democrats think anybody making $75K or more is rich and just ripe for more taxes.
This is false. Kerry promised to restore ONLY the top tax bracket to the previous higher tax rate. Those would be people making over $326,450. In addition, Democrats in general have no coherent tax policy and because congress is run by Republicans, have been relegated to opposing the idiotic Bush tax cuts however they can.
In addition, because of the policies of George Bush, the ultra-rich can pay themselves in options and stock and only pay a maximum tax of 15%. UNDERSTAND THIS VERY IMPORTANT POINT! A tax cut for the rich is a HIDDEN tax increase for the working class. Government debts do not get paid by magic, and eventually someone WILL have to pay down the national debt. >>
John Kerry was a liar! His own web page laid out an entirely different tax program than the one he talked about. He certainly intended to raise taxes on single people earning 75K and couples at 90K.
A progresive tax system is the basis for socialism. When Jimmy Carter was finally shown the door, the top rate was at 70% and you saw how well the economy was running under his guidance.
I have no idea what some people consider ultra-rich, but I do know that when I compared Al Gore's tax proposal to George Bush's back in 2000, I saw that Al was going to take an extra 21K from me. How do you think I voted? I'm far from ultra rich by anybody's definition.
Further, what's wrong with people keeping what they make? To begin with, the founding fathers never intended for there to be an income tax and I still believe it is unconstitutional. The only fair tax is just that, a fair one. Everybody pays the same percentage. That I could accept.
Where does this concept that some people should pay a higher percentage come from? Sounds like the public indoctrination schools are having the desired effect. It's real easy to get Paul's vote when you are robbing Peter to pay Paul for it. 50% of the people in this country pay virtually no taxes at all, how is that fair in the land of the free?
What would be accomplished by destroying the top 10% of wage earners that the Democrats constantly demonize?
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
Best analysis and thought in this thread in weeks!!!
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
2) The federal reserve has sloppy control over the economy, but that doesn't change what I'm saying either. The government will act to limit growth when necessary, and historically they've been very capable of doing so.
3) If the US isn't a closed system, the planet certainly is. It doesn't violate my rule of not being able to create wealth unless it's at the expense of someone else.
4) Adding value then selling a product is ALWAYS reflected in the GDP because that's what the GDP is........production and consumption of products in the USA. Adding value then using it yourself is the only exception to the rule. Most of us are not capable of creating 99% of what we own and use, therefore the wealth created that does not register in the GDP will always be limited to very small projects that we produce, keep, and use. You can make your chair, you can sit in it, but you cannot sell it and gain money unless you take that money from someone else. If the total chair consumption of your closed system is 1, then you've just put the other chair maker out of business.
It is a zero sum game. Don't believe free market economy advocates that want to enslave you.
John Kerry isn't the Democratic party, but John Kerry said he'd only increase the top tax bracket. I can't challenge your assertion that his web site said differently because I cannot find this web site you speak of. However if you measure taxes by SPENDING instead of REVENUE as most intelligent people would, then George Bush has raised taxes more than any individual in the history of the world.
A progresive tax system is the basis for socialism. When Jimmy Carter was finally shown the door, the top rate was at 70% and you saw how well the economy was running under his guidance
I thought I put this lie to rest. A progressive tax system IS NOT SOCIALISM!!!! If you are incapable of finding out what socialism REALLY means then you are incapable of having an intelligent conversation and should leave the discussion. Character assassination, in this case calling Carter a socialist, is ethically corrupt and one of the favorite tools of the radical uneducated right wing. Stop being dishonest!! Your second point, that a 70% top tax bracket caused a poor economy in the late 70's is pretty much nonsense. We had a top marginal tax rate of 90% after World War II and enjoyed the greatest economic boom until that time. From 1926 until 1929 the top marginal tax rate was 25% leading up to the worst despression in world history!!!!!! These are facts, look them up yourself. Supply side is FRAUD and people who advocate it are lying to you.
Where does this concept that some people should pay a higher percentage come from? Sounds like the public indoctrination schools are having the desired effect. It's real easy to get Paul's vote when you are robbing Peter to pay Paul for it. 50% of the people in this country pay virtually no taxes at all, how is that fair in the land of the free?
Do you really want to know??? I came from the Great Depression. In the 1930's it was decided that the depression was in part caused by huge wealth disparity, and public tax policy should be used to discourage such a lopsided economy. Prior to the 1930s, we had a depression about once every 20 years. After the new deal, we haven't had an economic depression since. I hope I'm not bothering you with too many facts...........
What would be accomplished by destroying the top 10% of wage earners that the Democrats constantly demonize?
Pure unfiltered hysteria. If you pretend that someone will DESTROY the upper class, then anything you've said prior MUST be true. Would Bill Gates be any less upper class if tax policy limited him to 1 billion dollars instead of 50 billion? Of course not. Remember people, MODERATION.........don't listen to idiotic hype.
My grandfather, Merle Curti, wrote a US High School textbook on US History. It was adopted by several states. Each year or three he was asked to revise his textbook. This was because the publisher could see that people were putting political pressure on various issues. This pressure changed over time. Civil Rights. Equal Rights for Women. Then several other issues. He was happy to refuse to revise his high school history textbook to mention creationism. So his high school text book was banned in some southern state. He was OK with that.
The thing is that a High School History Textbook is really only a brief, terse, limited, overview of history. One can, and many do, spend their whole lives studying small issues raised by textbooks such as this.
I might comment that GDP includes other things than just products produced in the USA. It also accounts for exports minus imports.
Hence the imports making their way into the country far outweigh the exports. Government spending is included and we know that $2 Billion per day of this is being funded from overseas. Hardly cause for joy. But the GDP # "improves." Inflation also affects the GDP
since a lower inflation number produces a higher GDP. Hence an understated CPI by 1% works to make the GDP look better by 1%.
This $2 Billion per day we borrow from overseas funds our increased standard of living at the expense of the rest of the world. Re. Iwog's zero sum game.
GDP definition
To get back on topic--- Govt data released this morning---
PPI -0.6% vs -0.2% consensus
Core PPI +0.1% vs +0.2% consensus
While you may not agree with the way the govt compiles these numbers--I do not completely--- you must still use them. The bond market surely is using them pushing the 30yr yield to 4.41%. Up from 4.18% just last week. The dollar is stronger today. There has also been rumor that some major players in the currency market who have been short the dollar are covering--Buffett?. Not only are they covering but they are buying puts on other currencies. It appears the demise of the dollar has been exaggerated.
We don't have to use these numbers and the only reason the bond market is influenced by them is because it helps to predict the movement of the sheep. The bond markets knows exactly what the real inflation rate is. But if the herd is going by the posted the CPI and PPI numbers, then that is where the bond traders will go to make their trades.
The dollar market appears to be turning south and may well be trending back down for a while. At least that is what the charts are saying. The short term moves in the dollar are just fluff to divert our attention away from the real trend. The dollar will continue to fall in the long term another 20-30%. It's inevitable. Of course there will be rallys along the way, as will gold. But long term the dollar has lots more to correct to balance the abuses heaped upon it by the FED and US Treasury.
roadrunner
GDP definition
According to Karl Marx, it's one of the basic tenets of socialism, but clearly you know more about it then he did. Gee, I'm incapable of understanding and incapable of intelligent conversation. I should leave the disscussion? Who elected you the moderator? I didn't call Carter a socialist, that is an asumption on your part. So far the only character assasination has come from you. I guess that makes you ethically corrupt. Not to mention a jerk as well. Radical uneducated right wing? You are a pompous elitist! I'm far from uneducated and you haven't got a clue to my politics.
Where does this concept that some people should pay a higher percentage come from? Sounds like the public indoctrination schools are having the desired effect. It's real easy to get Paul's vote when you are robbing Peter to pay Paul for it. 50% of the people in this country pay virtually no taxes at all, how is that fair in the land of the free?
Do you really want to know??? I came from the Great Depression. In the 1930's it was decided that the depression was in part caused by huge wealth disparity, and public tax policy should be used to discourage such a lopsided economy. Prior to the 1930s, we had a depression about once every 20 years. After the new deal, we haven't had an economic depression since. I hope I'm not bothering you with too many facts...........
It was decided? Just as simple as that? Why? because you say so? By whom? FDR? The man responsible for the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of the world. It was perfect as the victims hadn't been born yet.
Too many facts? I thought I was incapable of even being in this discussion. No, I haven't seen too many facts yet, so don't trouble yourself over it. I'll manage to get by somehow. Tax policy is used by politicians to punish their enemies and enrich their friends. That's pretty much been a Democrat game as they had control for 50 freaking years!!
What would be accomplished by destroying the top 10% of wage earners that the Democrats constantly demonize?
Pure unfiltered hysteria. If you pretend that someone will DESTROY the upper class, then anything you've said prior MUST be true. Would Bill Gates be any less upper class if tax policy limited him to 1 billion dollars instead of 50 billion? Of course not. Remember people, MODERATION.........don't listen to idiotic hype.
I asked you a question, you respond with nonsense and have yet to address my pertinent issues. I'm learning not to listen to your idiotic hype.
Now you talk of limiting people's assets? You make a plea to the "people", don't listen to this. That's sad and desperate. What do you have to fear if people listen?
Why did you have to resort to the personal attacks? That's generally the first resort when you don't have the answer to the question, attack the questioner.
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
According to Karl Marx, it's one of the basic tenets of socialism
Just because Karl Marx advocated a heavily progressive tax system doesn't mean that socialism is BASED on a progressive tax. Socialism is government owned industry and the abolishment of private property AS DEFINED IN WEBSTER. Furthermore you UTTERLY IGNORED my two examples of a top tax rate both higher and lower than during Carter. YOUR ARGUMENT was that a 70% top tax rate caused the Carter recession yet when I pointed out that in post World War II America the top tax rate was 90% (boom economy) and in 1929 it was 25% (Biggest depression in world history) You IGNORE it!!!!! Answer these examples before you answer anything else. You remind me of someone who's pointing out the paint on my car is red instead of orange after trying to argue that it was a mule..........
It was decided? Just as simple as that? Why? because you say so? By whom? FDR? The man responsible for the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of the world. It was perfect as the victims hadn't been born yet.
This one is REALLY bizzare........you first try to invalidate my point, then you VALIDATE my point by naming the man responsible. For god sake man, figure out what you're trying to argue before you type a sentence. You answered the first part of your own question by naming FDR. The second answer is of course congress.
I asked you a question, you respond with nonsense and have yet to address my pertinent issues. I'm learning not to listen to your idiotic hype.
This was your question: What would be accomplished by destroying the top 10% of wage earners that the Democrats constantly demonize?
First I'll answer it. Nothing is accomplised by destroying the top 10% of wage earners. (By the way, you've totally ignored every single question I've put to you so far) Your premise that ANYONE wants to "Destroy" the top 10% of wage earners is absurd and therefore makes it really really childish to begin with. There is no policy proposed by anyone that seeks to destroy ANY wage earners so once again I point out that what you say is hype, designed to inspire hatred of the left, and not worth the electrons it was printed on.
Why did you have to resort to the personal attacks? That's generally the first resort when you don't have the answer to the question, attack the questioner.
Non-sequitur, not an argument, and simply a diversion from the topic.
<< <i>Why did you have to resort to the personal attacks? That's generally the first resort when you don't have the answer to the question, attack the questioner.
Non-sequitur, not an argument, and simply a diversion from the topic. >>
I agree, that's why I asked you why you resorted to it. It says alot about you.
You say you came from the depression? What, are you 85 years old?
It's late, I'll try my best to address your other issues tomorrow. I know, you think I'm too stupid or uneducated to do that and you don't think I belong in this discussion. But shucks, I'll study up on some fancy words in the mean time and try my best.
BTW, didn't you get it? I was making fun of anyone who thinks FDR did a good thing by creating the social security welfare system. Make no mistake, it is welfare and once they begin the means testing it takes away what fragile arguement to the contrary that still exists.
I guess your memory is slipping, it was Al Gore who preached and ranted long and furiously about the top 10% of wage earners and what he was going to do to them. Yes, he did intend to destroy them through taxes. He figured he could fool enough of those who don't pay taxes to punish the successfull. Class warfare at it's worst.
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
Lets forget about taxation for just a minute, and talk about confiscation. No communism, no socialism, lets just round up everyone with any decent net worth take everything they have, and ship them all to start over in some hell hole in Africa.
“The number of U.S. millionaires in 2004 reached an all-time high of 7.5 million with this sizable increase, including 740,000 who surpass the $5 million threshold.
In terms of the overall affluent market, which comprises households with a net worth of $500,000 or more, excluding primary residence, 25% growth in 2004 brought the total to 13.1 million.
According to the latest figures, the number of high net worth individuals included 2.7 million in North America with a total of $9.3 trillion in assets. The study includes what it termed “ultra high net worth individuals,” who have at least $30 million plus in financial assets.”
So all the Billionaires, and all the millionaires, and all the folks with at least $500,000 will net us in the neighborhood of 10.5 trillion, lets call it 11 trillion in case we left anyone out.
The current, on the books, U.S. debt is 7 trillion 775 billion dollars. In the next ten years another 20 trillion can be added to that for unfunded liabilities in S.C., Medicare, pension liabilities, etc. This gives us a total of a minimum of 27 trillion 775 billion.
If we confiscate all of the money from anyone with any perception of wealth with a net worth of $500,000 up, during the next ten years we are short by say 16 plus Trillion PLUS INTEREST.
So how far down the ladder do we go to confiscate all the money we need to pay our debts?
The answer is simple. IF we had continued the policies of Bill Clinton and eliminated deficit spending, we could have grown our way out of the national debt in a few decades. Clinton raised taxes for the top two tax brackets and was rewarded with a boom economy and a balanced budget. For everyone who hates Bill Clinton, he actually DID reduce spending and reduce or eliminate government programs. Bill Clinton was a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.
George Bush is a fiscal liberal who has grown the government more than any leader in the history of the world. If this continues, you can expect dire results on our economy.
“The answer is simple. IF we had continued the policies of Bill Clinton and eliminated deficit spending, we could have grown our way out of the national debt in a few decades.”
The problem that most Clintonites have is that they point to the fact that Clinton did in fact have a balanced ANNUAL budget for a couple of years. This real does nothing for the over all debt, and he was still spending all of the S.C., Medicare, government pension monies to make claim to balancing the budget.
Mr. Clinton added 1.5 trillion to the deficit while he was in office, that is a fact that can easily seen just by going to the on line gov. debt website.
You cannot borrow money from all these TRUST funds put the money in the annual budget and make claim to having a balanced budget.
As the numbers clearly show NO tax is possible to balance our current and coming liabilities.
Deadhorse, is exactly correct when he calls all these program ponzie schemes.
These ponzie schemes are going to max out in the next decade and no amount of tax will cure those schemes. FORGET taxation it would take confiscation of everyone’s assets that had a net worth of $100,000 or more just to keep up.
Yes right now the whole World is buying all of our debt but where is the limit?
Will they still be buyers in a few years when the on the books debt is 15 trillion?
Even Standard and Poors, Moody’s, et. Al. agrees that U.S. treasuries should be classified as JUNK bonds.
Yes. Just as they did 50 years ago when the debt was 500 million which at the time sounded astonomical.
The dollar market appears to be turning south and may well be trending back down for a while. At least that is what the charts are saying. The short term moves in the dollar are just fluff to divert our attention away from the real trend. The dollar will continue to fall in the long term another 20-30%. It's inevitable. Of course there will be rallys along the way, as will gold. But long term the dollar has lots more to correct to balance the abuses heaped upon it by the FED and US Treasury
I have attached a chart of the dollar over the past 15 years. I dont see where it is turning south right now. It may be slightly overbought though having bounced 10% in the last few months. It has also bounced from MAJOR support near 80. It will take ALOT to break that support. I dont see another currency coming in to replace the dollar. Europe has too many problems so that leaves the YEN. This is a possiblity but I doubt it.
You expect another 20-30% decline. That would put the dollar under the 80 support level. I dont see that happening, but if it does your estimate will be conservative.
Of further note...Gold has been showing relative strength against the other currencies of late. Notice that gold hasnt really been hit as the dollar has strengthend. That bodes well for the yellow metal.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
A dirty secret is that the Bush tax cut was mostly eaten up by the AMT for those earning $150k to $350k, so he got credit for cutting taxes without really cutting them for a lot of high earners.
Yet the deficit continues to soar!
Hmmm. the guy who says clinton is a conservative and he didn't raise my taxes on my $33k income... says others are uneducated?
I believe someone commented about revisionism somewhere.....
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Where Buffett went wrong.......Buffett vs $$$$ >>
Buffett has made a lot of mistakes -- and he will admit it. His USAir preferred shares were one of his biggest dogs. And he is taking it on the chin with the GeRe/AIG reinsurance scandal.
Not everyone is right all of the time, even the Oracle of Omaha!!
Bill Clinton and congress raised taxes in 1993 for the top two tax brackets. That was the only income tax increase during his two terms. Do you think I'm wrong? Do you mind showing me some evidence? I've been posting tons of facts and examples, it seems my detractors are incapable of doing the same.
What is so amazing however is that Warren Buffet established his currency position in 2002! (It's in the 2002 shareholder's letter) All you have to do is look at Cohodk's chart on the previous page to see what an amazing and accurate prediction was made. Even if Berkshire-Hathaway sold its foreign currency position at the top of this current upswing, it would still mean huge profits and an incredibly successful investment on the part of Buffett. This currency trade was perhaps the best investment the company made in the last three years.
But go back and read the article..........according to Markman, Buffett is a loser who "has had his head handed to him by more experienced currency players." This is outright lying by the author and a yet another pathetic attempt to assassinate the character of an EXTREMELY successful social liberal who also happens to be the second richest capitalist in the world. (as I've said numerous times, liberalism is NOT socialism)
Jon Markman believes that politics is a football game and because he wants to defend his quarterback, he will warp the truth as much as he can get away with. After all, how DARE Buffett scold the Republican government to get the federal deficit under control. It's an outrage!
Buffet was also criticized for Berkshire lagging the market during the 2000 tech bubble. Few criticized him in 2001.
Again, Buffet is not perfect, and has made many mistakes, but no one can match his long term record for success.
He made a lot of money on the way down and is a patient investor. If he is covering his short then he believes the worse may be over for the dollar. He may very well be right again.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Buffett shorted the dollar because deficit spending was rising every year, the trade deficit was rising every year, and the political trend in Washington was more tax cuts and greater fiscal irresponsibility.
So what's changed? Things have only gotten worse since 2002 so if the dollar was a good short then, it's an excellent short now. I guess the only argument you can make in favor of a rising dollar is that the rest of the world is relatively worse off, so maybe the dollar looks good by comparisson. If this is true, then ALL currencies will fall relative to a fixed measure of wealth. (Gold and silver) If this is the senario, then Buffett makes a ton of money on his silver stockpile and wins anyway.
Buffet was a joke during the tech stock run because he didn't see a value and didn't join in the buying or losing
buffet is a value buyer or investor all i can see now is just what was going on during the tech stoch run wait and see
I have to agree. FDR is probably one of the worst presidents in history both for starting the trend away from a supported currency and numerous socialistic programs and the blueprint for out of cotnrol spending. In the end, his programs did not pull us out of the depression, but rather the entry into WW2 did that. But GW is doing his best to destroy the US dollar and end up in the top 3.
Move over FDR.
I don't agree that any president in the last few decades has decreased govt spending. Last time I checked the charts it has increased every year over the past 25 years. No one has kept it in check. The size of govt always increases, never decreases. And no president has balanced the budget in the past few decades as was already stated. Robbing from long term entitlements does not count.
Cohodk, the 20-30% decline I foresee in the dollar will not take it just below 80, but into the 60-70 range....maybe to 50. No amount of huffing and puffing is changing the fundamentals that have existed for the past several years. Every key fundamental for a dollar bear market is still intact long term. The dollar will make a high at some point and head back to 80, eventually breaking under 80. Until some fundamental changes in the economy a downward direction is all but assured. Right now the US dollar is running into major league resistance at the 88-90 level. Sure, it could go to 96. But at some point it will resume its long term drop as the redline on your chart shows (long term moving average = the major trend).
I see no true indications that a dollar bull is underway. A secular bear market rally in the US dollar index is what is occurring.
roadrunner
Were you paying taxes in 1993 when Clinton's retroactive tax increase hit?
Prior to 1993, seniors paid taxes on half their Social Security benefits if their combined income exceeded $25,000 for individuals or $32,000 for couples. But in 1993, the portion of taxable Social Security benefits increased to 85%, as individuals with incomes above $34,000 and couples with incomes above $44,000 became subject to the higher rate of taxation.
If I remember correctly, this only affected a very small percentage of social security recipients and it didn't affect anyone who earned a wage. If you're going to cite this one very specific example I suggest you explain the tax. Your comment:
Clinton tax hiked single people making $30,000 per year. Talk is cheap.
Is FALSE for the HUGE majority of Americans making $30,000 a year. Do you understand that you were wrong with regards to over 95% of the people in this country making $30,000 a year? This is dishonest in a political debate. As I said before, the proper analogy would be you make the point that my car is red instead of orange, when previously you were arguing it was a mule.
Since I pride myself in being accurate, I will amend my statement about Clinton's tax hike. Clinton only raised taxes for the top two tax brackets, with an exception being the change in social security rules which resulted in a small number of social security recipients having a higher tax rate. I really don't think this changes my point one bit.
It's proper that a government increases spending every year because the population and government obligations increase every year, and that doesn't even take into account inflation. The reason Bill Clinton was exceptional with respect to the budget is for two reasons:
#1 He correctly determined that if people were going to vote for a legislature that spent this much money, then they should be forced to pay the bill. Therefore he raised taxes on precisely the groups that HAVE THE MOST INFLUENCE ON THE GOVERNMENT. The upper class. Who do you think is going to all those fund raising dinners?
#2 After increasing revenues, he moderated spending and actually used his veto power to eliminate idiotic tax cuts put forward by the Republican legislature. The most disgusting and immoral of these was the estate tax repeal bill of 1999.
The result was that for the first time since 1969 we took in more money than we spent. The resulting faith in the US government's fiscal responsibility spurred foreign investment, interest rates dropped, and we had the lowest unemployment rate in recent memory. George W. Bush has trashed all of it.
I agree that if the dollar breaks 80 then all bets are off. The drop WILL BE fast and hard. I just dont see--on a relative basis--- that things are any different now than 20, 40, or 80 years ago. The discussions we are having are the same that our grandfathers bantered about.
So what's changed? Things have only gotten worse since 2002 so if the dollar was a good short then, it's an excellent short now. I guess the only argument you can make in favor of a rising dollar is that the rest of the world is relatively worse off, so maybe the dollar looks good by comparisson. If this is true, then ALL currencies will fall relative to a fixed measure of wealth. (Gold and silver) If this is the senario, then Buffett makes a ton of money on his silver stockpile and wins anyway
Buffett must certainly see some fundamental change. Like I mentioned earlier gold is beginning to show strength against the other major currencies.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
My opinion of Clinton is biased, since I dont like people who look me in the eyes and lie, but Bush has not changed any of your above comments.
1. Foreign investment is near all-time highs.
2. Interest rates are at the lowest levels in 40 years.
3. The unemployment rate is 5.1%. We are at nearly full employment and have the lowest unemployment rate among the largest industrialized countries. It is very difficult to get unemployment much lower because there is a population of undesirable workers. These people can never hold a job and are not looking for jobs. They are quite content in receiving their govt handouts.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
While my personal income took off in a meteoric manner a few years ago, I haven't forgotten what it was like when I made $35 - $40K back in the early 90's. Bill Clinton did indeed raise my taxes. I saw it in my paycheck stub and the bottom dollar and as a single parent of two teens, it hurt. It also taught me first hand that Clinton was a liar of the first degree, I seem to recall he promised me a middle class tax cut. Oh, but I forgot, it wasn't a tax increase, it was a contribution. What a pure scumbag piece of trash that man was and still is.
I don't know how anyone could defend a man who retroactively taxed the estates of dead people. Retroactive laws are unconstitutional but somehow retroactive income taxes(unconstitutional in themselves) aren't?
Clearly, someone has their head so far up Clinton's rear that their vision is beyond impaired.
I can balance your budget too, I just won't pay a lot of your bills. That's essentially what Clinton did when he gutted the military. But, since liberals hate the military, I suppose that was perfectly acceptable. So was selling our nuclear and missle technology for illegal campaign contributions from the Red Chinese Army.
The damage done to our nation by that man has yet to be totaled up, but if we survive to write the history books, Benedict Arnold will look like a patriot in comparison.
But hey, what do I know? I'm so damned uneducated that I shouldn't even be allowed in this discusssion, remember? Why, I'm so stupid that my long term investments are only up 65% over the last 30 months and I believe in silver and gold, which was the original topic here. I'm such a moron that I only managed to net 135K on one deal a bit over a year ago on silver bullion only. I'm not even counting that in the 65% mentioned earlier, that was a short term flip.
So, forgive me if I appear too stupid to keep up with the brilliant Clinton butt kisser.
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
Are you going to admit you were wrong or are you going to totally ignore the facts to suit your own purposes? Why do you keep changing the topic from one of economics to a discussion of Bill Clinton's morality?
You're simply lying. I've provided the exact details of the 1993 Bill Clinton tax increase. Here is a link to further prove my point. I doubt it will matter because you'd rather endlessly repeat libel against the former president than to accept that perhaps you were wrong.
I don't know how anyone could defend a man who retroactively taxed the estates of dead people.
The Estate tax was passed over 80 years ago. It was eliminated before the Great Depression and was reinstituted by FDR. Claiming that Bill Clinton taxed the estates of dead people is simply insane, the law has been on the books for decades. If you'd stop talking in cliches for a few minutes, I'd be glad to explain why the estate tax is the MOST fair of all taxes and why the two richest men in the world are actively fighting Bush's attempts to eliminate it.
I can balance your budget too, I just won't pay a lot of your bills. That's essentially what Clinton did when he gutted the military.
Quite literally, you define "Gutting the military" as spending more on defense than the entire remaining world military budget combined. The lowest point was in 1997 when US military spending was over ONE QUARTER TRILLION DOLLARS! This position is utterly absurd.
The rest of your post was either bragging about making money, or inspiring hatred of Clinton without any economic basis at all.
<< <i>You stated that under Carter, the top tax rate was 70% resulting in a poor economy. I provided three examples: A 90% top tax rate post WWII that resulted in a huge boom economy. A 25% top tax rate that resulted in the Great Depression, and a Bill Clinton tax hike in 1993 which resulted in another economic boom lasting until the year 2000.
Are you going to admit you were wrong or are you going to totally ignore the facts to suit your own purposes? Why do you keep changing the topic from one of economics to a discussion of Bill Clinton's morality? >>
First, I wasn't wrong. Second, when you have been proven to be wrong you decide to "amend" your statements. Somehow you weren't wrong? How does that work? But I must admit, that is true Clintonian double speak in action. Are you at least admitting that Carter's 70% tax rate did damage the economy?
Clinton's tax hike had nothing to do with the boom of the 90s, that was due to Reagan's cuts which allowed for investment into R&R resulting in the tech boom. Clinton was fortunate to be president at the time, he inherited the economy that people mistakenly give him credit for. The economy succeded in spite of Clinton, not because of him. The current President inherited the Clinton recession which was caused by his tax programs. The chickens were finally coming home to roost and roosting chickens only result in a big pile of chickensh!t.
The end of the war resulted in a huge boom in industry which converted their war production to peacetime products. Radio and TV being a good example. Add in the GI bill and everybody could now afford a house and that added to all sorts of production and jobs to build said housing. The tax rate had nothing to do with it. Bet you didn't know that gutters, aluminum gutters didn't even exist till that GI Bill. That's an example of war production turning into peacetime products. In fact gutters at all were very rare on homes pre WWII.
I can't speak to the tax rates in the 20s, that was way before my time and frankly, I haven't studied that aspect of history in terms of the tax rate, only the trends that portend a similar fate in our near future.
Not changing the topic at all, just pointing out that one can't look at the lies and cooked books of the corrupt Clinton administration and conclude anything as fact. You keep using him as some sort of yardstick and I point out that it's based on lies. It's based on the most corrupt, immoral man to ever hold that office.
He didn't balance any budgets because the books were clearly cooked. Just like when FDR confiscated the citizen's gold at $15.50 an ounce and then after taking it all he revalued it at $35 and went on the radio to announce that he had increased the treasury by hundreds of millions of dollars and the sheep bought into his lies. That's pitiful, yet you defend such people.
BTW, I kept it right on topic with my addition of my personal investments in silver and gold. Tell me again how stupid and ignorant I am based on the gains I've made. Where did I go wrong, oh mighty elitist distributor of liberal nonsense?
BTW, that was not bragging at all!!! I took a lot of heat on this board for what I did and I didn't come back and rub anyone's noses in it. I haven't even mentioned it except in PMs up to this point. Though several posters have told me a should post about it, just to shut up the precious metals bashers. You should be ashamed of yourself for that cheap shot.
Just to keep you straight, I'm not a big fan of George Bush either. Very disappointed in him even though his parents live just a mile or so from me and I've run into George H. W. Bush a few times over the years. I'm not some sort of right wing fanatic as you have tried to paint me, far from it.
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
I started out praising you for your insights, even though I didn't agree with all of them.
The minute I disagreed with you, you resorted to personal attacks.
You are an elitist of the worst kind. Nasty, self assured and pompous.
Ah, thanks for the supportive PMs folks. Yes, I agree with what has been said to me privately. Looks like some folks are reading this and just looking out for my best interests. This thread has indeed been taken over by socialist scumbags. Not my words, but the cummulative agreement it seems. I have to agree wholeheartedly.
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
it is obvious, that neither bush or clinton, was in office for the normal man/woman
in america. both serve their masters, that of large businesses.
That is how it has been, well forever.
As for FDR, he dealt with something most americans cannot comprehend.
Can you imagine being so poor, so out of work, you thought yourself worthless?
As for WWII, america and england nearly screwed that up too. Thank god for the
russians who gave their lives to stop germany. While we were more concerned
with politics and money. We invaded North Africa and Italy first. Can you begin
to understand how much that pissed off russia? God america is so full of itself.
fricking history/newspapers/media content is warped beyond recognition.
f**k yes i am buying gold. the dollar will decline long term. Look at the prices you
are paying for stuff.
I think we are passed the point where it can change. a financial collapse
will finally wake up the sheep. it will be the new form of warfare instead of
the cause.
I want a line drawn in the sand. How much do i have to be taxed before i
plan for a revolution. where does it all end?
i would gladly spit in president bush's face. I would gladly kick each senator
in the rear. 100-0 votes on certain bills makes them deserve it.
i am a country of one. buy gold. shed your dollars for true assets.
/end rambling