Made in???????

[Bubstr]

Because we had just finishing bombing our competitors into oblivion in Germany and Japan. Our allied competitors, Great Britain and France where left nearly bankrupt from bankrolling WWII. Essentially we had no competitors and could set our own price. Once competition from these four countries arose we lost our competitive edge and essentially have had wage stagnation for around 40 years.

If you somehow think prosperity is the result of a high tax-rate you are poorly informed. No one paid that level of tax, there was generous loopholes that since then have been largely eliminated. For example my brother is chasing his masters degree. Since he makes in the $90k range he can't even deduct tuition. In the 50's you could shelter huge sums of income in off-shore accounts.

Most credible economists claim that FDR's actions caused the depression to hold on for 4-6 years longer than it should have. His price fixing and wage fixing did not allow the market to correct itself and caused the depression to linger.

We bombed all the other economies out of existence. Nice try. You can believe that garbage if you want, but we where buying German machinery in the 50s, All of the war torn countries where on their feet long before the 60s and that period was our highest standard of living for the middle class.
It is wage stagnation, but if your argument was factual, wouldn't corporate profits stagnate also?
That hasn't happened, therefore your argument is false. It is simply that corporate profits went up at the expense of wages.

It is true that some tax deductions have been removed, but at that time because of the deductions, up to 98% of your income could be taxed. As the deductions where removed the tax percentage was lowered. However today you can make millions and only pay 15%, while someone in the upper middle class may have to pay 38%. That is all because of corporate profits and their congressmen protecting them.

In your last statement, that most credible economist claim. It simply isn't true, but if you say it enough people believe it's true. A few economists may have said that. Most economists agree that constriction of money is what made it last so long. Wake up, why do you think the FED is doing these QE1, QE2 and now QE3 for? To circulate money. FDR was unable to circulate enough money with the restrictions at the time. If it wouldn't have been for WW2 creating a consumer, we may still be in that depression. It had nothing to do with the markets correcting it's self.

Speaking of the QEs, that is actually a tax on main street to make wall street well. Granted this money is interest free, but it comes at the cost of big inflation down the road and the people will pay in buying power and more stagnant wages.

[Bubstr]

If it was not for the Union Lobby asking government to tax the rich, thus starting the circulation of money, we may well still be in the great depression. That tax ran up to 98% of taxable income that makes no sense where does that money go but the govt correct so how get it to circulate with a fan come on thing this out

Ok here is how it works. When you have a recession or depression, you don't lose money. There is every dime there during it as there was before it. What happens is it stops circulating. The ones that have it, don't want to lose it so they hold on to it. The stop spending, loaning or investing in things. The poor don't have it or jobs so they can't spend. We basically run out of consumers. By taxing and stimulating the economy, the government can jump start the economy. Of course this can't go on forever or we could just tax ourselves into prosperity. In essence the government is forcing taxpayers to be consumers, instead of rat holing their money. Get it circulating again.

[kidrock]

We bombed all the other economies out of existence. Nice try. You can believe that garbage if you want, but we where buying German machinery in the 50s, All of the war torn countries where on their feet long before the 60s and that period was our highest standard of living for the middle class.
It is wage stagnation, but if your argument was factual, wouldn't corporate profits stagnate also?
That hasn't happened, therefore your argument is false. It is simply that corporate profits went up at the expense of wages.

It is true that some tax deductions have been removed, but at that time because of the deductions, up to 98% of your income could be taxed. As the deductions where removed the tax percentage was lowered. However today you can make millions and only pay 15%, while someone in the upper middle class may have to pay 38%. That is all because of corporate profits and their congressmen protecting them.

In your last statement, that most credible economist claim. It simply isn't true, but if you say it enough people believe it's true. A few economists may have said that. Most economists agree that constriction of money is what made it last so long. Wake up, why do you think the FED is doing these QE1, QE2 and now QE3 for? To circulate money. FDR was unable to circulate enough money with the restrictions at the time. If it wouldn't have been for WW2 creating a consumer, we may still be in that depression. It had nothing to do with the markets correcting it's self.

Speaking of the QEs, that is actually a tax on main street to make wall street well. Granted this money is interest free, but it comes at the cost of big inflation down the road and the people will pay in buying power and more stagnant wages.

Bubstr you are so right. By the end of this your or the beginning next we are going to be paying dearly for QE1,QE2 and QE3.

[LITE-INN]

ok here is how it works. When you have a recession or depression, you don't lose money. There is every dime there during it as there was before it. What happens is it stops circulating. The ones that have it, don't want to lose it so they hold on to it. The stop spending, loaning or investing in things. The poor don't have it or jobs so they can't spend. We basically run out of consumers. By taxing and stimulating the economy, the government can jump start the economy. Of course this can't go on forever or we could just tax ourselves into prosperity. In essence the government is forcing taxpayers to be consumers, instead of rat holing their money. Get it circulating again.

you can't tax your self into prosperity the only doing well in that one is the taxman which is who???? and the lil guy will pay for it all in the end you tax the big he cannot invest either

[LITE-INN]

read it I dare you

http://www.iwise.com/nGbDq

[LITE-INN]

http://www.moneynews.com/LarryKudlow/cheer-tax-prosperity/2013/01/03/id/469991

[Bubstr]

you can't tax your self into prosperity the only doing well in that one is the taxman which is who???? and the lil guy will pay for it all in the end you tax the big he cannot invest either

With all the links you post, it tells me you have a problem, like most in this country, with critical thinking. Some just need to be told what to think and some think.

It is true, that tax and spend is not a sustainable, but it is also true that tax and spend, if done correctly can and does kick start the economy.

It isn't a matter of if the big guy can invest, spend or loan, it's a matter of if he will. To point this out, just look at the Too Big To Fail Bank Bail Out. This bail out was designed to free up lending. As these banks operate on a marginal reserve basis, it means they have more loans than money. With fear of a bank run, they tend to stop loaning money so they can cover withdrawals if needed. Instead of freeing up lending, it was held till after the danger subsided and paid back by most banks. It did not spur new or extend established loans that came due. It was not a matter of could not, it was a matter of would not. This is exactly why Trickle down economics does not work.

Trickle up economics works. If you have a consumer with a dollar in their hand, there will be someone that wants to make a sale and will invest, spend and loan, to get that dollar. Any other way to look at it is contrary to human nature and pure BS put out by someone that doesn't want to pay their share of the Tab.

The three worse things done by our government, that created most of the problems we have today are. Creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913. Compound interest is the most powerful thing in the world.
Regan destroying the Monopoly laws, which discouraged competition and promoted price fixing.
The destruction of Glass Steagal amendment with Simpson Bolls amendment, then weakening it. Which negates the need for commercial banks to loan money. They can now make money by gambling your savings in the markets.

[skids]

Trickle up economics works. If you have a consumer with a dollar in their hand, there will be someone that wants to make a sale and will invest, spend and loan, to get that dollar. Any other way to look at it is contrary to human nature and pure BS put out by someone that doesn't want to pay their share of the Tab.

I will address the above portion of your post.

While I agree that IF a consumer has a dollar to spend that there will be someone who wants to make a sale etc. The real point that conservatives are making is that it CAN'T be the GOVERNMENT that puts that dollar in that person's hand. They need to EARN it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

I have yet to find someone that can tell me what the "rich's" "fair share" is. You want to take a shot at it?

Please watch Dr. Carson (especially at the 1:20 mark) and tell if and/or how you can contradict anything he says.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmCuBOW4e9U

[Clayton_Wetter]

Walmart.com to sell goods made by small women-owned businesses.

http://news.yahoo.com/walmart-com-sell-goods-made-small-women-owned-120221821--finance.html

How Communistic of them (sarcastic scowl)

[Bubstr]

I will address the above portion of your post.

While I agree that IF a consumer has a dollar to spend that there will be someone who wants to make a sale etc. The real point that conservatives are making is that it CAN'T be the GOVERNMENT that puts that dollar in that person's hand. They need to EARN it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

I have yet to find someone that can tell me what the "rich's" "fair share" is. You want to take a shot at it?

Please watch Dr. Carson (especially at the 1:20 mark) and tell if and/or how you can contradict anything he says.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmCuBOW4e9U

Looking at your posted link, I can see what type of media feed back you are using for negative feed back and can only assume you use similar for positive feed back. No one can be this naive.

I am all for each and every person paying their own way. Picking up the tab that is based off the same percentage as everyone else. The problem with this is there aren't enough jobs to go around. A byproduct of a cheap and abundant work force. Who benefits from this cheap and abundant work force? It certainly isn't the guy with out a job. I doubt if it's the guy or family that has to work 2 or 3 jobs to achieve a minimum standard of living. I don't even think the higher end of the middle class wage worker benefits, because wages are stagnant and they are losing ground to the American Dream. Even at that, I would have no problem, giving a minimum standard of living deduction and taxing at the same % rate across the income range. You do know, you can't get money from someone that has none and I believe the Constitution says something about health and welfare of the population not just the ones that can afford it. I'm sure there are dead beats that play the system, but I believe most would rather have the job and pay their own way. It is just not available with in this economic system. We have allowed almost half of the population to become government dependent, yet corporate profits have gone up as a direct result of the cheap and abundant work force. This isn't about making money, it's about circulating money. It has been proven since the 60s that Corporate America has failed at this. Who would be your choice to circulate money, if not the government? The government will have to change some to do this as they have leaned to support higher incomes and corporations in various ways in the past and present.

Note, 40% to 60% of colleges are funded by the government. Who makes use of these institutions most? Not the poor dummy. SS taxes some at 15% of their income. Some only pay .0035% of their income. They receive the same benefit. When the economy inflates 4%, that is felt much more for a person in the lower income group than a rich person. Make no mistake, inflation is a tax. It is directly related to how much the government borrows to spend. A poor man can deduct home ownership based off a $40,000 house, a rich man can deduct off a $1,000,000 house. They both serve the same purpose. What do you think is fair? In one of your links, it addressed tithe. Tithe= To whom much is given, much is required?

The government has been bought and paid for by Corporate America and they are getting their monies worth. You may have not had your American dream busted yet and believe you can. I have one question. Are you in the 1% and if you aren't, who do you think is going to jump out to let you in? Go play the Lotto.

The bottom line is how do we create jobs? How do we put that dollar in the hand of the poorer guy that has to spend it instead of the guy that can hold on to it? It's al about money circulation.

[Bubstr]

Walmart.com to sell goods made by small women-owned businesses.

http://news.yahoo.com/walmart-com-sell-goods-made-small-women-owned-120221821--finance.html

How Communistic of them (sarcastic scowl)

Where do they find all these small women? Cheap labor is cheap labor.

[Clayton_Wetter]

Note, 40% to 60% of colleges are funded by the government. Who makes use of these institutions most?

The government makes the most use out of these "institutions" if that's what you want to call them. Why do you think that they insist on being the only funding source??

[Clayton_Wetter]

[/QUOTE]The bottom line is how do we create jobs? How do we put that dollar in the hand of the poorer guy that has to spend it instead of the guy that can hold on to it? It's al about money circulation.[/QUOTE]

"Taking" from the haves and giving to the have nots, only creates more have nots.

[15D]

We bombed all the other economies out of existence. Nice try. You can believe that garbage if you want, but we where buying German machinery in the 50s, All of the war torn countries where on their feet long before the 60s and that period was our highest standard of living for the middle class.
It is wage stagnation, but if your argument was factual, wouldn't corporate profits stagnate also?
That hasn't happened, therefore your argument is false. It is simply that corporate profits went up at the expense of wages.

It is true that some tax deductions have been removed, but at that time because of the deductions, up to 98% of your income could be taxed. As the deductions where removed the tax percentage was lowered. However today you can make millions and only pay 15%, while someone in the upper middle class may have to pay 38%. That is all because of corporate profits and their congressmen protecting them.

In your last statement, that most credible economist claim. It simply isn't true, but if you say it enough people believe it's true. A few economists may have said that. Most economists agree that constriction of money is what made it last so long. Wake up, why do you think the FED is doing these QE1, QE2 and now QE3 for? To circulate money. FDR was unable to circulate enough money with the restrictions at the time. If it wouldn't have been for WW2 creating a consumer, we may still be in that depression. It had nothing to do with the markets correcting it's self.

Speaking of the QEs, that is actually a tax on main street to make wall street well. Granted this money is interest free, but it comes at the cost of big inflation down the road and the people will pay in buying power and more stagnant wages.

Some tax deductions have been removed? You aren't worth responding to.

[ss12]

Where do they find all these small women? Cheap labor is cheap labor.

Bubstr are you running for president? You got my vote already.