Joe Biden: White America 'has to admit there's still a systemic racism'

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by themystic

Hi My name is Mystic-"Im powerless over big government and my life has become unmanageable "

I can relate to that

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by themystic

Reagan went out in disgrace. Trickle down economics failed. His foreign policy against Russia was better than any President. Funny how you love the Russians bb. I don't think RR would have liked you

There you go again...you don't know anything about me but yet you try and ASSUME everything!!
Trickle down...you don't even know what the means!!
And Obummer and the rest of the left...Trickle up!!
Don't you think we would be in a uptopia if the government control EVERYTHING...since you're a capitalist and the is one of capitalist core beliefs...oh wait that's communism.
Yeah Reagan went out in disgrace...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/11887/r...ll-review.aspx

[themystic]

Originally Posted by bb1961

There you go again...you don't know anything about me but yet you try and ASSUME everything!!
Trickle down...you don't even know what the means!!
And Obummer and the rest of the left...Trickle up!!
Don't you think we would be in a uptopia if the government control EVERYTHING...since you're a capitalist and the is one of capitalist core beliefs...oh wait that's communism.
Yeah Reagan went out in disgrace...

Im 100% capitalist. I see your party just started some corporate welfare for farmers in the Midwest and factory workers in Wisconsin? Shame you guys want to give government handouts to everyone. Let me know if you would like to learn a better way of living

[themystic]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Mystic, I agree with the first part of your post.

As you know, there are a lot of things besides the tax rate on high earners that effect the economy. The overall level of taxation and the size of government are more important. If you filter out small countries and petrostates, the five most prosperous countries in the world are the following: Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, Hong Kong, and the United States. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...PP)_per_capita for confirmation.

What do these countries have in common, besides rule of law and relatively low levels of corruption? Overall, compared to other developed countries, they have lower taxes. Significantly more money goes into the private sector than to government. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...e_to_GDP_ratio

My experience after Obama's tax increases are similar to yours under Reagan. Part of the reason is that I'm not going to bust my ass and risk much money. Why do it if you're going to pay a big chunk of your income to the government if you do well but get nothing back if you do poorly.

I don't think its accurate to say Reagan went out in disgrace. Maybe you're talking about Iran Contra? He went out of office with a 63% approval rating. He did spend more on defense than I would have liked, but many people, maybe including you, make the argument that he brought down the iron curtain as a result.

That's a fair argument. I liked Reagan. I even spent time in Nicaragua in the 80s. What I don't like about big tax cuts for the rich is the economy tanks every time and the guys hurt are the people who live paycheck to paycheck. That's a lot of people Tiny

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by themystic

What I don't like about big tax cuts for the rich is the economy tanks every time and the guys hurt are the people who live paycheck to paycheck. That's a lot of people Tiny

I'd make the exact opposite argument Mystic. The GDP growth rate averaged 3.5% per year under Reagan. It averaged 5% per year in the 5 years after John F. Kennedy's tax cut. As to George W. Bush, 9/11, his misadventures in Iraq and the 2008 financial crisis were what hit the economy, not his tax cuts, but still economic growth was about the same, 2.2% per year, as during the years after Obama's tax increase (2013 to 2016).

And I think both our arguments are weak, because, again, there are other things going on in the economy and with government that are more important than the maximum rates on high earners. I've got no doubt though that when you raise taxes too high on any group, be it low income or billionaires, it hurts all of us.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I'd make the exact opposite argument Mystic. The GDP growth rate averaged 3.5% per year under Reagan. It averaged 5% per year in the 5 years after John F. Kennedy's tax cut. As to George W. Bush, his misadventures in Iraq and the 2008 financial crisis were what hit the economy, not his tax cuts, but still economic growth was about the same, 2.2% per year, as during the years after Obama's tax increase (2013 to 2016).

And I think both our arguments are weak, because, again, there are other things going on in the economy and with government that are more important than the maximum rates on high earners. I've got no doubt though that when you raise taxes too high on any group, be it low income or billionaires, it hurts all of us.

Ask someone who lives week to week or even month to month what the GDP rate is. I bet you get a great big look from them of WTF are you talking about. Most Americans don't own stocks. Only 10% of Americans have a pension plan

http://www.mybudget360.com/stock-mar...wns-us-wealth/

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by themystic

Ask someone who lives week to week or even month to month what the GDP rate is. I bet you get a great big look from them of WTF are you talking about. Most Americans don't own stocks. Only 10% of Americans have a pension plan

http://www.mybudget360.com/stock-mar...wns-us-wealth/

OK, you could look at growth in median household income and the trends I described would still be true, except that 2013 to 2016 (after Obama's tax increase) would be better than the period after Bush's tax cuts. Still, again, this is a bit pointless. Ask an economist and he'll tell you there are other factors more important than tax rates on high earners to prosperity of someone living paycheck to paycheck.

Ownership of stocks and peoples' knowledge of the GDP growth rate are pretty much irrelevant to what we're talking about. That said, it would be good if we somehow could replace social security with a system like Chile, Singapore or Australia where most people would indirectly own stocks instead of participating in some kind of a sham national pension scheme.

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by themystic

Im 100% capitalist. I see your party just started some corporate welfare for farmers in the Midwest and factory workers in Wisconsin? Shame you guys want to give government handouts to everyone. Let me know if you would like to learn a better way of living

Like your Venezuelan socialist utopia...

[themystic]

Originally Posted by bb1961

Like your Venezuelan socialist utopia...

big problem with your post bb. Im not a socialist nor Venezuelan

[themystic]

Originally Posted by Tiny

OK, you could look at growth in median household income and the trends I described would still be true, except that 2013 to 2016 (after Obama's tax increase) would be better than the period after Bush's tax cuts. Still, again, this is a bit pointless. Ask an economist and he'll tell you there are other factors more important than tax rates on high earners to prosperity of someone living paycheck to paycheck.

Ownership of stocks and peoples' knowledge of the GDP growth rate are pretty much irrelevant to what we're talking about. That said, it would be good if we somehow could replace social security with a system like Chile, Singapore or Australia where most people would indirectly own stocks instead of participating in some kind of a sham national pension scheme.

When most people live week to week or month to month it is relevant. When the economy slows business pulls back. That hurts the working man. Those are just facts. I don't give a fuck what the GDP or anything else is

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by themystic

Only 10% of Americans have a pension plan[/url]

If true this is misleading. They must be including babies, spouses of people with pensions, etc. in their numbers.

This indicates 81% of retirees receive income from a pension plan, and 42% receive over half of their income from pensions:

https://www.planadviser.com/majority...ave-a-pension/

[themystic]

Originally Posted by Tiny

If true this is misleading. They must be including babies, spouses of people with pensions, etc. in their numbers.

This indicates 81% of retirees receive income from a pension plan, and 42% receive over half of their income from pensions:

https://www.planadviser.com/majority...ave-a-pension/

That would be seriously flawed. Search around

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by themystic

When most people live week to week or month to month it is relevant. When the economy slows business pulls back. That hurts the working man.

I have no problem with any of that, except I don't think most people live week to week or month to month. Way too many do though.

Absolutely we should have better safeguards in place to help people when they get laid off or fired. This is one of the problems with the Democratic agenda, instead of spending money and organizing government wisely and in a way that will help people, they spend too much time figuring out how to fuck businesses, and higher earners. The Republican Party could do better too.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by themystic

You have a flawed premise. Why is the government spending my money on bombs instead of bridges? You don't like the government>? Do you like roads, airports, police, etc. I don't need them legislating my morality. Churches should pay taxes also

You're right on one point. You aren't worth the cost spent on bombs used to protect your and those like you. What say I buy you a Swiss Army knife and bus ride to Tijuana where you can defend yourself against the violence and carnage wrought by the Cartels and you can earn your keep.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I have no problem with any of that, except I don't think most people live week to week or month to month. Way too many do though.

Absolutely we should have better safeguards in place to help people when they get laid off or fired. This is one of the problems with the Democratic agenda, instead of spending money and organizing government wisely and in a way that will help people, they spend too much time figuring out how to fuck businesses, and higher earners. The Republican Party could do better too.

Heres what Fox said when Obama was President

https://insider.foxnews.com/2014/04/...check-paycheck

Heres today under Trump

https://popularresistance.org/shutdo...k-to-paycheck/