Tax the rich

[tom pritchett]

I think that ALL politicians from both parties have done their part in destroying our country and it's economy. The problem is there is no personal responsibility for money spent. How easy is it to spend other people's money in relation to spending your own? Our government spends our money with no thought of having to repay it as they don't have direct emotional ties to the money spent.

Jim, I have to agree with a statement you made about we must fix this together as we made this mess together. The only way is to buckle down, pay the debt and balance the budget. Each congress that is not in control wants term limits and a balanced budget ammendment until the power changes and then the other side wants the term limits and balanced budgets.

I would like to see us back to the 1900's as far as our debt and our percentage of taxes we have to pay. I know that there will be a lot of government departments that will have to be removed, but this economy cannot be fixed with a razor blade, it needs a cleaver.

If we can stop spending and stop borrowing, we all will be in a better place.

To answer a question before about why not just default the loans that we have. I believe that I read that countries are worth what they have in resources generally and not the gold standard. This includes oil in the ground as well as mining etc...It is the resources. I understand that with all of the loans that we have from China, they hold a "note" on our natural resources and a term that I have heard related to this topic is emminent domain. We cannot just not pay our debts to China as they hold the collateral in the form of our resources. Maybe that is why we cannot drill here, drill now, putting our own people to work and not be reliant on other countries for their oil and resources.

Sorry, but this is just a few quick thoughts reading through the post.

 

[Mark]

You're right Tom. Good points.

By talking of default? Why not? It in iteself is not a serious proposal. I tend to throw stuff out there to make us all think, soemtimes differently and to see who's explanations make more sence. I genuinely do not understand many of the complexities and at the same time genuinely consider most of it to be BS. Until someone can explain (as they would to an person of average inteligence), exactly how it works, or in the caurrent case, doesn't.

I cannot imagine anything happening that would have us back in horse-drawn carts by Wednesday week. Perhaps I am wrong.

I think we all tend to agree that most of the money spent is spent wildly and on the wrong things. Firstly, on too much government.

 

[Bob Fechter]

You're right Tom. Good points.

By talking of default? Why not? It in iteself is not a serious proposal. I tend to throw stuff out there to make us all think, soemtimes differently and to see who's explanations make more sence. I genuinely do not understand many of the complexities and at the same time genuinely consider most of it to be BS. Until someone can explain (as they would to an person of average inteligence), exactly how it works, or in the caurrent case, doesn't.

I cannot imagine anything happening that would have us back in horse-drawn carts by Wednesday week. Perhaps I am wrong.

I think we all tend to agree that most of the money spent is spent wildly and on the wrong things. Firstly, on too much government.

Too much government. Exactly, that's why some of us in the USA wish to go back to the Constitution and hold our federal government to its original intent.

How there is no room to even discuss cutting back spending here, and I assume in the Mother Country, is beyond my comprehension.

There was a time when all of us were proud of our self reliance, and were more than happy to help those less fortunate than us without allowing the government to take from us in the name of helping others, and then wasting it all on God knows what.

 

[Mark]

People here (UK), talk constantly of how previous Conservative governments sold off services and things like railways and power companies to the private sector. And that somehow this is a bad thing?

Do people really think that the government is qualified or competant to run any kind of business? (I am not being glib atm)

Would energy be cheaper if their were no share-holders demanding great profits? Of course it wouldn't. These people forget that the government is quite happy to tax petrol at 80%. Why would energy be any different. Would the rail roads run more effiviently? Doubtful. Government would raise travel fairs just like any other owner would, private or public.

The thing is, I don't really see anything drastically changing in the form of new idea's or new approaches to age old problems. Just lots of ranting about cuts. Has anyone heard anyone else actually suggest better ways to approach (what are after-all) the problemas facing the entire western-world?

It is so easy to pick holes in existing ideas. Not so easy to offer rational alternatives.

The only reason we (the UK) got left behind since WWII, was exactly for the fact that these things were run by the government and therefore under-funded and left to rot.

Government should be run by business people, with poiliticians debating policies only. Not deciding who should clean the bins.

We've got 'anti-capitalists' 'occupy london protests parked outside St. Pauls. What's it all about people? Stop shouting about those who have a little more than you do, or those that have enough drive to have goals in their lives. Socialism didn't exactly blossom did it?

I bet if you looked (massive generalization coming up) 90% of the deluded fools will be wearing sandals WITH socks and be sporting beards. Yes, even the women.

 

[Jim Craik]

Check this out, just more evidence, when it comes jobs and the economy........
I do not know where this chart came from, but if it's true...............

Job Growth Rates
under recent presidents:
President % Growth
in # years
BEST records :
Johnson (D) 3.8% in 5
Carter (D) 3.1% in 4
Clinton (D) 2.4% in 8
Kennedy (D) 2.3% in 3
WORST records :
Nixon (R) 2.3% in 5
Reagan (R) 2.1% in 8
Bush-I (R) 0.6% in 4
( Bureau of Labor Statistics*)

 

[Bob Fechter]

Check this out, just more evidence, when it comes jobs and the economy........
I do not know where this chart came from, but if it's true...............

Job Growth Rates
under recent presidents:
President % Growth
in # years
BEST records :
Johnson (D) 3.8% in 5
Carter (D) 3.1% in 4
Clinton (D) 2.4% in 8
Kennedy (D) 2.3% in 3
WORST records :
Nixon (R) 2.3% in 5
Reagan (R) 2.1% in 8
Bush-I (R) 0.6% in 4
( Bureau of Labor Statistics*)

That really looks official!

 

[domtoni]

Check this out, just more evidence, when it comes jobs and the economy........
I do not know where this chart came from, but if it's true...............

Job Growth Rates
under recent presidents:
President % Growth
in # years
BEST records :
Johnson (D) 3.8% in 5
Carter (D) 3.1% in 4
Clinton (D) 2.4% in 8
Kennedy (D) 2.3% in 3
WORST records :
Nixon (R) 2.3% in 5
Reagan (R) 2.1% in 8
Bush-I (R) 0.6% in 4
( Bureau of Labor Statistics*)

Jim, post the original source please.

 

[Jim Craik]

That came from the internet, I'll have to get the source from my I-pad at home, but here are some similar stats. The numbers are very similar arn't they?

Hay Bobbie, does that look "official" enough for you?

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" itxtNodeId="116" itxtHarvested="0"><TBODY itxtNodeId="124" itxtHarvested="0"><TR itxtNodeId="125" itxtHarvested="0"><TD vAlign=top itxtNodeId="128" itxtHarvested="0">Job growth by president





</TD><TD vAlign=center width=88 itxtNodeId="127" itxtHarvested="0"></TD><TD class=barpost width=274 align=right itxtNodeId="126" itxtHarvested="0">clip this postemail this postwhat is this?</A itxtNodeId="137" itxtHarvested="0">
see most clipped and recent clippings



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<CENTER itxtNodeId="139" itxtHarvested="0"><TABLE width="90%" itxtNodeId="141" itxtHarvested="0"><TBODY itxtNodeId="142" itxtHarvested="0"><TR itxtNodeId="143" itxtHarvested="0"><TD itxtNodeId="144" itxtHarvested="0">Let's bust another Republican myth. Here is the obvious contradiction with the beliefs of supply-side/neoliberal economists. Job growth is better under Democrats.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>

 

[Jim Craik]

Ok Bobbie and Domtoni,

Obviously you both doubted the data, now that there is a second source, that backs up the first post, what are your thoughts?

The trends are very clear, why are Consevatives so consistantly bad at job growth?

 

[40 Bud]

Jim is that private sector growth or does it include government bureacracy as well?

 

[Bob Fechter]

Ok Bobbie and Domtoni,

Obviously you both doubted the data, now that there is a second source, that backs up the first post, what are your thoughts?

The trends are very clear, why are Consevatives so consistantly bad at job growth?

"hay" Jim, numbers don't lie, you know the rest.


Job Growth Under Bush and Prior Presidents: 1941 to Present

 

[Jim Craik]

Bud,

I really do not know exactly what the numbers represent, the two are very similar. But they could both have come from corrupted sources.

Bud it was nice meeting you at Howards party.

 

[domtoni]

Bud,

I really do not know exactly what the numbers represent, the two are very similar. But they could both have come from corrupted sources.

Bud it was nice meeting you at Howards party.

Jim, all I want to do is attempt to reconcile your numbers with other figures I have seen. I suspect inflation has a large part to do with Carter's startling numbers and your figures don't reconcile employment.

 

[Jeff Young]

Just to clarify, no, China does not hold a "note" on US natural resources. They have invested in US Treasury bonds and other investement vehicles which are not secured by anything other than the good credit of the United States.

I'm not trying to be rude but do people really believe things like this?

To answer a question before about why not just default the loans that we have. I believe that I read that countries are worth what they have in resources generally and not the gold standard. This includes oil in the ground as well as mining etc...It is the resources. I understand that with all of the loans that we have from China, they hold a "note" on our natural resources and a term that I have heard related to this topic is emminent domain. We cannot just not pay our debts to China as they hold the collateral in the form of our resources. Maybe that is why we cannot drill here, drill now, putting our own people to work and not be reliant on other countries for their oil and resources.

Sorry, but this is just a few quick thoughts reading through the post.

 

[Jeff Young]

There is a very good, in my view the strongest, argument that the founders intended with the Constitution to give us a framework of government designed to expand and evolve over time as the country did. Obviously, a government the size of the one in 1787 would be completely unworkable now.

So please stop with this "go back to the Constitution" stuff we see all the time now. No side "owns" the Constitution. Both offer differing interpretations of it with different levels of validity in varying aspects of that interpretation.

Too much government. Exactly, that's why some of us in the USA wish to go back to the Constitution and hold our federal government to its original intent.

How there is no room to even discuss cutting back spending here, and I assume in the Mother Country, is beyond my comprehension.

There was a time when all of us were proud of our self reliance, and were more than happy to help those less fortunate than us without allowing the government to take from us in the name of helping others, and then wasting it all on God knows what.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

A new word.

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead

are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely

to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the

confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

 

[Jim Craik]

A new word.

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead

are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely

to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the

confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Least capable to lead?

Bachmann
Palin
Perry
Trump
McCain
Bush
Pizza guy

 

[Jeff Young]

Economy grew 2.3% this quarter. Stocks up over 12,000. Unemployment will be down below 9% soon.

It seems that traditional Republican/Democrat policies of stimulus in times of demand failure, plus the work to keep Wall Street, the Banks and the car companies afloat, seem to have begun to pay offf.

 

[domtoni]

Least capable to lead?

Bachmann
Palin
Perry
Trump
McCain
Bush
Pizza guy

And where do you rate your hero?

 

[Mark]

I would love to be governed by some geezer called Pizza Guy.