Capitalism

[xfire]

Most of the time, I like where your head is at, mah dood. But this is where you go off the rails. Let's not get toooooo carried away. A little carried away...fine. I'm just sayin'.....not toooooo carried away.

It's true. Think about it, greed has enabled fewer people to concentrate more wealth. Ask yourself this, why has the value of the dollar decreased so much over time?

http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

Powerful corporations coupled with decreased regulation has given us what we have today. Now they want to go after unions. So ok, Mayhem, maybe I should have taken the time to be more precise with my words.

Here's an article by Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and one of the authors of Reaganomics-

http://real-agenda.com/2010/08/13/unregulated-greed-has-destroyed-the-capitalist-system/

Here's a snip-

What deregulation did was to permit Wall Street to push the deregulated industries– phone service, airlines, trucking, and later Wall Street itself– to focus on profits and not on service. Profits were increased by curtailing service, by pushing up prices and by Wall Street creating fraudulent financial instruments, which the banksters used America’s reputation to market to the gullible at home and abroad.

...

Conservatives and especially libertarians romanticize “free market unregulated capitalism.” They regard it as the best of all economic orders. However, with deregulated capitalism, every decision is a bottom-line decision that screws everyone except the shareholders and management.

In America today there is no longer a connection between profits and the welfare of the people. Unregulated greed has destroyed the capitalist system, which now distributes excessive rewards to the few at the expense of the many.

If Marx and Lenin were alive today, the extraordinary greed with which Wall Street has infected capitalism would provide Marx and Lenin with a better case than they had in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

One of the architects of Reaganomics wrote that. Well worth reading the whole article.

 

[Sam Fisher]

I haven't suggested companies give their products away. And, if you read back, you magnificent buffoon, you will see where I've extolled the virtues of capitalism. I go back to what I've been saying, raise taxes on the rich, and raise taxes on corporations. They could all bring jobs back to these shores but they refuse to because they're ate up with greed.

You're a fucking Marxist. Plain and simple!

Hey clown, read the following... learn something from someone who KNOWS wtf they are talking about. Versus you and your idiotic ideas about what you think will be best for the country.

*Read it... it contradicts EVERYTHING you say about raising taxes to what they were in the 1950s. (especially read the last sentence of the article)

The Laughable Economic Fallacies Embraced by Progressives (xfire, it blows your theories completely out of the water)

This column by ACRU General Counsel and Senior Fellow for the Carleson Center for Public Policy (CCPP) Peter Ferrara was published April 19, 2012 on Forbes.com.

Persistent economic fallacies hurt working people and the poor the most. They are the ones most in need of the new jobs and higher wages that capital investment and economic growth produce. And they suffer the most from unemployment and declining wages and incomes when the economy falters. Self-styled Progressives are the source of the economic fallacies that are hurting working people and the poor today.

One common fallacy popular among self-proclaimed Progressives is to reply to the point that America now has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world at nearly 40% with the counter that the average effective corporate tax rate is only around 25%. But it is the marginal tax rate on the next dollar earned, not the average rate, that influences new investment, business expansion, and hiring.

Pro-growth tax reform would involve reducing that top rate in return for closing many of the loopholes that make the average rate so much lower. The average rate would rise as a result. But the lower marginal rate would increase incentives for more capital investment, business expansion and job creation.

Another fallacy among Progressives is to argue that America has enjoyed historically low taxes under President Obama with federal revenues around 15% of GDP compared to the long-term, postwar average of 18.3%. But that is due to the persistent weakness of the economy under Obama, which lowers federal revenues as a percent of GDP, as bankrupt businesses and unemployed workers pay little or nothing in taxes.

http://theccpp.org/2012/04/the-laughable-economic-fallacies-embraced-by-progressives.html

*EDIT* - Please do not post entire articles. A few sample paragraphs and the link are plenty acceptable.

 

[xfire]

Riddle me this, Samantha- Why has Supply-Side economics been such a dismal failure for the last thirty years?

 

[Sam Fisher]

Riddle me this, Samantha- Why has Supply-Side economics been such a dismal failure for the last thirty years?

Still going to pretend you know more about this topic that Steve Forbes, huh?

 

[xfire]

You can't answer a simple question. I'll answer yours, Steve Forbes knows what's good for Steve Forbes. And by the way, that article wasn't written by Steve Forbes. This column by ACRU General Counsel and Senior Fellow for the Carleson Center for Public Policy (CCPP) Peter Ferrara was published April 19, 2012 on Forbes.com.

Idiot.

 

[Sam Fisher]

Riddle me this, Samantha- Why has Supply-Side economics been such a dismal failure for the last thirty years?

Fuck off! Read the article I posted, then we'll talk.

 

[xfire]

I read the article. Typical supply-side rubbish. Have you read any of the ones I've posted? The question I asked above pertains directly to the article- Why has supply-side economics been such a dismal failure over the last thirty years? Answer that or shut the fuck up. And if you even attempt to say that supply-side works then explain the fucking National Debt.

And now I predict that you will run away like a scared bitch and start posting in other threads, or better yet, start a new thread.

 

[ballzano]

Riddle me this, Samantha- Why has Supply-Side economics been such a dismal failure for the last thirty years?

Supply side economics creates jobs (Reagen) duh! It does work..

 

[xfire]

Supply side economics creates jobs (Reagen) duh! It does work..

Supply-Side creates deficits and debt. Duh. Do the research.

http://reaganbushdebt.org/

 

[ballzano]

Supply-Side creates deficits and debt. Duh. Do the research.

http://reaganbushdebt.org/

research? you did research, Obama hasn't created Shit! and he spent more faster than anyone else pfft! One fucking job maybe, no not even one fucking net job. He gave money to other countries that have creates jobs (not here). No jobs equals no money. How old are you anyway? after 94 we had a surplus, even with Clintons capital gain hikes. the Repubs balanced the budget

 

[xfire]

research? you did research, Obama hasn't created Shit! and he spent more faster than anyone else pfft! One fucking job maybe, no not even one fucking net job. He gave money to other countries that have creates jobs (not here). No jobs equals no money. How old are you anyway? after 94 we had a surplus, even with Clintons capital gain hikes. the Repubs balanced the budget

Another clueless "conservative".

Riddle me this, genius, how much did Ronald Reagan increase the National Debt?

 

[ballzano]

Another clueless "conservative".

Riddle me this, genius, how much did Ronald Reagan increase the National Debt?

So now Reaganomics won the cold war, and balanced the budget... Now if we could just remove the social leeches

 

[xfire]

The correct answer is Ronald Reagan raised the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

 

[Trident1]

So now Reaganomics won the cold war, and balanced the budget... Now if we could just remove the social leeches

Reagan helped win the Cold War, a fact that rubs the Left bonkers. The current leftist revisionists when not feeling sorry for Islamists do their best to say otherwise but it falls on deaf ears. Most Americans know Reagan pulled us through.

 

[xfire]

Here's an article by Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and one of the authors of Reaganomics-

http://real-agenda.com/2010/08/13/unregulated-greed-has-destroyed-the-capitalist-system/

Here's a snip-

None of us in the Reagan administration foresaw jobs offshoring as the consequence of Soviet collapse. We had no idea that by bringing down the Soviet Union we would be bringing down America. During the Reagan years India was socialist and would not allow foreign corporations, had they been interested, to touch their labor force. China was communist and no foreign capital could enter the country.

However, once the Soviet Union was gone from the earth, the remaining socialist and communist regimes decided to go with the winners. They opened to Western corporations and sucked jobs out of the developed West.


One of the architects of Reaganomics wrote that. Well worth reading the whole article.

Here it is again, since you ignored it the first time.

 

[Trident1]

Obama hasn't created Shit!

Well he has created something. 5 trillion in wasteful spending and he has plans to do more damage if the Bobo in chief get's a second term. Currently under Barry the GDP going to gov't is close to 25%. It should be less than 18% but that will never happen with Barry and the Dems. There isn't enough tax revenue in this country to cover that high percentage. They are spending more than they take in. The more they tax the worse off everyone becomes. Bobo Barry wants to tax your investments and pensions so you have nothing left. Complete madness but that's the nature of the Democrats.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Well he has created something. 5 trillion in wasteful spending and he has plans to do more damage if the Bobo in chief get's a second term. Currently under Barry the GDP going to gov't is close to 25%. It should be less than 18% but that will never happen with Barry and the Dems. There isn't enough tax revenue in this country to cover that high percentage. They are spending more than they take in. The more they tax the worse off everyone becomes. Bobo Barry wants to tax your investments and pensions so you have nothing left. Complete madness but that's the nature of the Democrats.

Once again a GOP talking point. Once again it's wrong. As usual.
http://www.politifact.com/new-jerse...has-added-more-national-debt-previous-43-pre/

 

[Trident1]

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/


"The figures in that graphic are pure fabrications, as anyone can easily confirm by plugging Obama’s inauguration date — Jan. 20, 2009 — in the Treasury Department’s handy “debt to the penny” website. That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office (not $6.3 trillion), and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years (not $6.5 trillion)."

 

[xfire]

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/


"The figures in that graphic are pure fabrications, as anyone can easily confirm by plugging Obama’s inauguration date — Jan. 20, 2009 — in the Treasury Department’s handy “debt to the penny” website. That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office (not $6.3 trillion), and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years (not $6.5 trillion)."

Break the spending down, stupid. How much of Obama's $4.7 trillion was mandatory? How much was interest paid on Reagan/Bush/Bush debt? Like a typical lying fucking republican you aren't being honest with the numbers. AND, besides that, assuming $4.7 trillion under Obama was ALL Obama's fault (which it's not), you're basically excusing $10 Trillion in Reagan/Bush/Bush debt. Now tell me, HOW are you conservative?

 

[Trident1]

Break the spending down, stupid. How much of Obama's $4.7 trillion was mandatory? How much was interest paid on Reagan/Bush/Bush debt? Like a typical lying fucking republican you aren't being honest with the numbers. AND, besides that, assuming $4.7 trillion under Obama was ALL Obama's fault (which it's not), you're basically excusing $10 Trillion in Reagan/Bush/Bush debt. Now tell me, HOW are you conservative?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/debt-under-obama-increasing-faster-than-under-bush/

Debt is increasing faster under Obobo than Bush. Obobo's policies won't help.