• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

can someone explain

Hereford76

Well-known member
I just don't understand politics... how does keeping the bush tax rate for the upperclass, wealthiest americans cost, for 1, the US gov't anything... its not their money to begin with, and 2 cost the country anything. i was always under the impression money was better spent in private hands and if our reps would cut spending it wouldn't be adding to the defecit that was GOV't created. don't the same principles nancy uses to back extending jobless benefits apply to keeping everyones money in their own pockets.

if we all were made of the same principles, standards, etc of nancy pelosi what kind of country would we live in? what kind of country would it be if the opposite?
 

beethoven

Well-known member
read here and learn what decision-makers have in mind:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=marx+current+affairs+free+trade+taxes

play with different combinations of words in your search for different hits ie., throw globalization into the search, or eliminate a word or phrase to change it up

patriotism and sovereignty together with promoting free trade is not workable. it does not work. the one direction negates the other.

marx was perhaps not necessarily speaking to the elite, but if you understand him to be speaking to the elite, so from this point of view, you will more easily gather that his message to gov't was to design free trade and taxes in order to eliminate the bourgeoisie, the workers and small businessmen, to homogenize the masses and give rise to a more powerful elite.

marx is buried in london.
 

Steve

Well-known member
I just don't understand politics... how does keeping the bush tax rate for the upperclass, wealthiest americans cost,

I am not an economist or a politician. so to a certain extent it baffles me as well..

but the Jist of it is.. if I raise the price.. I will get more money...

and in the political world.. if I don't raise the price,(or tax).. I lost that money, because I already spent it...

the part that the economist will explain is that raising the price or TAX will change behaviors..






as for the wealthiest two percent... the math gets even fuzzier..

it is a large group,.. but only a small portion are really effected..

those with income from 250,000 to about 600,000 often can not make a drastic enough change in their taxable income to eliminate all the effects of the tax increase..

the exception is the incorporated small business, in the short term, they can put more in assets, or pay down debt...

above 600,000 most are tax savvy enough to revise their year end income to avoid any increase at all,

which leaves large corporations that pay stake or stock holders.. they are caught in a position that they need earnings to generate investment.

and the real top 1% taxpayers is corporations.. not rich people..

because all the high cost education taught me one thing.. only the poor pay taxes, the rich people can afford not to..
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
Economics is not an exact science. Even economists disagree. Here is the way I see it. Says Law still hold true. Production creates wealth. Our production is our real weath. The government has no real money, it can levy taxes and make it appear that it does. Still the government can print money, write check and IOU's that serve as money. This in a sense taxes people because with a greater noney supply earned money will buy less. Keyness's theory was that there are times when the economy can be stimulated when the government puts more of this bogus money out.

We have seen this happen many times. It is said that back at the beginning of World War one, my Grandfather bought a quarter of land. They had a good crop year and prices for crops increased. As he had the option to pay off early he paid off his mortgage. The seller wasn't happy he had expected the intrest for years to come, and the price he receive d would not buy the same as when he sold. But things came full circle, my uncle took over this land, he had a tough time making it, then it went back into the estate. In the 1930's there was hardly any market at all for land, a scalper got it all.

In Germany in the early 1930's before Hitler anyway, Germany tried to pay off their debts but issueing more money Hyper inflation resulted. money that once could be carried from bank to bank in a breif case now need a truck. A farmer with a mortgage on his land could now bring one load of potatoes into town and receive enough to pay off his mortgage.
 

Hereford76

Well-known member
i'm still lost.

i guess my question was this. i heard nancy pelosi making the case that extending jobless benefits is like a direct stimulous to the economy because the jobless spend it immidiately. but neglects to mention it isn't paid for so it still adds to the defecit. she also says extending the bush tax cuts to the wealthiest adds some huge figure to the deficit and that is not acceptable even tho it is more money in american pockets to be spent, invested, or saved whatever that should also help the economy. i guess what i can't understand is why is it acceptable for her in her mind to allow legislation that adds to the deficit for one and not the other.

after reading some of beethoven's search suggestions - and maybe i'm wrong on the generalizations made from it - it is clear it is an attempt to push whatever she can to further her extreme liberal/socialist agenda. but i can't believe that half the country that voted for this administration actually want any of this, such a huge gov't presence, any form of socialism, or such an extreme liberal agenda. i guess i just can't believe that she thinks she can get away with misguiding the public to help her ture efforts.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Hereford76 said:
i'm still lost.

i guess my question was this. i heard nancy pelosi making the case that extending jobless benefits is like a direct stimulous to the economy because the jobless spend it immidiately. but neglects to mention it isn't paid for so it still adds to the defecit. she also says extending the bush tax cuts to the wealthiest adds some huge figure to the deficit and that is not acceptable even tho it is more money in american pockets to be spent, invested, or saved whatever that should also help the economy. i guess what i can't understand is why is it acceptable for her in her mind to allow legislation that adds to the deficit for one and not the other.

after reading some of beethoven's search suggestions - and maybe i'm wrong on the generalizations made from it - it is clear it is an attempt to push whatever she can to further her extreme liberal/socialist agenda. but i can't believe that half the country that voted for this administration actually want any of this, such a huge gov't presence, any form of socialism, or such an extreme liberal agenda. i guess i just can't believe that she thinks she can get away with misguiding the public to help her ture efforts.


You are trying to use logic, common sense and reasoning to understand a point of view from someone with a debase mindset.

IT DOESN"T WORK! :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Ol Nasty couldn't even grasp the fact that they were going to lose the house. It is as if they have scales over their eyes- they simply CAN NOT see!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hereford76 said:
i'm still lost.

i guess my question was this. i heard nancy pelosi making the case that extending jobless benefits is like a direct stimulous to the economy because the jobless spend it immidiately. but neglects to mention it isn't paid for so it still adds to the defecit. she also says extending the bush tax cuts to the wealthiest adds some huge figure to the deficit and that is not acceptable even tho it is more money in american pockets to be spent, invested, or saved whatever that should also help the economy. i guess what i can't understand is why is it acceptable for her in her mind to allow legislation that adds to the deficit for one and not the other.

after reading some of beethoven's search suggestions - and maybe i'm wrong on the generalizations made from it - it is clear it is an attempt to push whatever she can to further her extreme liberal/socialist agenda. but i can't believe that half the country that voted for this administration actually want any of this, such a huge gov't presence, any form of socialism, or such an extreme liberal agenda. i guess i just can't believe that she thinks she can get away with misguiding the public to help her ture efforts.

first let me help you by saying be careful about listening to mass media too much. they lie continually...fox news, cnn, all of them. go to places like www.freeamericanpress.com or infowars.com to name a few.

the personal income tax is unconstitutional first and the money supply is fiat and tied to nothing so all of the things you are worried about are only semantics. we are broke already by our current system.

look at things ron paul is saying and you will understand that our country financial balance sheet has been burned and they are making up new rules as they go now before rome burns.
 
Top