I suspected that the Fed was cooking the books for Obama. But if productivity production isn't based on fuller employment, then the market being 'the leading indicator' is an irrelevancy to the functionally unemployed (p/t'ers and long-termed unemployed); indicating that just part of the population is benefiting while the other part isn't. I saw an article tha asked why wasn't Main Street recovering with the rise in (the pre-Trump) market. I was thinking that it's because the few who were benefiting could only spend so much on sectors relevant to them, than if there was a broader dissemination of wealth (trickling ) down throughout the economy..

So even if the Fed sells off its excess, it's just taking away the Obama economic cosmetics, but the underlying productivity by way of greater employment still is not a probable or guaranteed event..

 

And everyone has the right to avoid discussing the topic of the thread, especially when the topic makes them look silly in defending it...

 

Tax Cut Cons


11/15/17

*not_secure_link*comicallyincorrect.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Pro-Cons-600-LA.jpg

 

I agree...defending high tax rates is foolish.

 

Dumb and ignorant comment...

 

You do not understand the difference between borrowing someone else's argument, and using the internet to verify factual assertions used on one's own argument.

This website:

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

is presented by the International Revenue Service. I used it to document fluctuations in the top tax rate.

This website:

https://www.infoplease.com/business-finance/labor-and-employment/united-states-unemployment-rate

is contains data drawn from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I used it to document fluctuations in the unemployment rate.

This website:

*not_secure_link*www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

gives date drawn from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

I used it to document fluctuations in the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in 1996 dollars.

Using data from these websites I demonstrated that during the Roosevelt administration the top tax rate, percapita GDP in 1996 dollars, and employment each rose. In other words during the Roosevelt administration we taxed our way to prosperity, contrary to Winston Churchill's assertion.

I am still waiting for your fact based rebuttal, which I expect you to compose yourself.

 

"It ain't Bertrand Russell, but what do you want?"

- Wizard, from "Taxi Driver"

 

Franklin Roosevelt was elected president in 1932. He was reelected in 1936, 1940, and 1944. Why am I not surprised that you did not know that?

 

America was founded on rich, white, male supremacy. When the U.S. Constitution was ratified only white men with a certain amount of property could vote. This meant that quite a few of the men who fought the British in the Continental Army during the American Revolution, including black men who had also fought the British, could not vote.

America was also founded on slavery and the belief that the Indians should be killed and robbed of their land.

Times change. Those who do not change get pushed out of the way.

 

Newsweek August 25, 2017

Senator Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America, according to a newHarvard-Harris poll. In fact, the Vermont senator and former presidential
candidate is the only politician in the U.S. who a majority of voters like.

The poll, which drew responses from 2,263 voters across the political spectrum August 17 to 22, found 54 percent have a favorable view of Sanders, while 36 percent view him unfavorably.
*not_secure_link*www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician-655315

 

I use the internet to document assertions that I use in my own arguments.

 

You don't prove that by asserting it.

My data on fluctuations in the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) is compiled by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

*not_secure_link*www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

From 1921 to 2000 the United States had Republican presidents for 40 years, and Democrat presidents for the other 40. This data demonstrates that the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) grew over twice as much under Democrat Presidents.

According to the following Wall Street Journal article, from the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George the Lesser there were nearly always more jobs created per year under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.

*not_secure_link*blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

According to this Wall Street Journal article, "Since 1900, the Dow has averaged a 7.8% annual gain under Democratic presidents, compared with a 3% annual gain under Republicans, WSJ reported earlier this year."

*not_secure_link*blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/11/06/what-an-obama-win-may-mean-for-stocks/

 

Saying that does not make it true. George the Lesser's tax cuts for the rich certainly did not help the middle class and families. It led to The Great Recession.

 

It did not! Freddie/Fannie and fools playing with credit default swaps caused the financial crisis, and in turn, the recession. (There were other extenuating circumstances, but those were the biggies.)

 

If you really believe tax cuts lead to the big crash then you just prove once again how clueless you are
about
economics.....

 

"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

---------

Encouraging people to buy houses they could not afford was one of the reasons for the Great Recession. Another was George the Lesser's decision to cut taxes for the rich while starting two expensive wars he could not win.

 

Rather than say you are clueless, I prefer to let you reveal it with your comments.

 

You are a hypocrite that does not understand what you are talking about. You are clueless and ignorant when it comes to the difference between borrowing someone else's argument, and using the internet to verify factual assertions used on one's own argument.

Watching you spew lies and double talk proves it every time....

 

@RandyKnight The tax cuts could do either of these (of other unnamed) options: 1-Increase the economic disparity and the social stress on the have-nots 2-Be the catalyst for self-serving but risky speculations (and political policies) that are unsustainable in the long-term.. A 'crash' in the environment I perceive would cause political instablity due tothe collateral disruptions in the financial markets seeking to cover the losses in the speculation, if not the political ramifications of poor policy

 

Funny thing is, when you search on "cause of 2008 financial crisis", of the first 10 or so that come up in the Google results, none of them mention your so-called "expensive wars he could not win".

Maybe you can provide one or two that "you found on the internet that agrees with you." Oh yeah, none of them mention Bush's tax cuts either.