With the US trapped in depression, this really is starting to feel like 1932

[dreamdancer 0]

seven years to go...

Quote

Roughly a million Americans have dropped out of the jobs market altogether over the past two months. That is the only reason why the headline unemployment rate is not exploding to a post-war high.

Let us be honest. The US is still trapped in depression a full 18 months into zero interest rates, quantitative easing (QE), and fiscal stimulus that has pushed the budget deficit above 10pc of GDP.

The share of the US working-age population with jobs in June actually fell from 58.7pc to 58.5pc. This is the real stress indicator. The ratio was 63pc three years ago. Eight million jobs have been lost.

The average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks. Nothing like this has been seen before in the post-war era. Jeff Weniger, of Harris Private Bank, said this compares with a peak of 21.2 weeks in the Volcker recession of the early 1980s.

"Legions of individuals have been left with stale skills, and little prospect of finding meaningful work, and benefits that are being exhausted. By our math the crop of people who are unemployed but not receiving a check amounts to 9.2m."

Republicans on Capitol Hill are filibustering a bill to extend the dole for up to 1.2m jobless facing an imminent cut-off. Dean Heller from Vermont called them "hobos". This really is starting to feel like 1932.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/7871421/With-the-US-trapped-in-depression-this-really-is-starting-to-feel-like-1932.html

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Lucky... 0]

Hey, you guys are all whiners with this recession stuff...... as per McCain's Financial advisor.


BTW, the key to getting out of the Great Depression was raising taxes 260% as Hoover did in 1 fell swoop, then FDR raised them more. We deficit spend as we hate to offend the rich, but that is only a shot in the arm. Give a poor person money, he spends it; give a rich person money, he saves it stagnating the economy.

You can create demand with welfare/assistance, you will create supply with the fear of excess inventory, hence a recession with a tax cut.

Every time taxes have been the in 20's% or 30's% since Harding/Coolidge dropped them to 25% top brkt in the mod 1920's we have been in great fiscal trouble. With taxes over that we've only had minor recessions. I guess the exception to that is immediately post-WWII, but the same happened immediately post WWI, so that influence is expected.

I guess the insanity thing applies; expect a different result for doing the same thing. Paethic thing is that even most rich do better in an environment with higher taxes, yet they screm for lower taxes. Kinda like a kid eating broccoli; do the painful and you will be better in the longrun.

[lawrocket 3]

Insanity is looking at what FDR did - which was take a severe recession and turn it into a depression - and try to emulate it. He was elected in 1932, right? By 1941 we were still in the Depression. Then came WWII and the economy started having money circulated (war bonds - remember those?). People started working to build machines of death.

It showed that the widespread progressive villainization of corporations and businesses was not only useless but was counter-productive. FDR knew that by blaming some group or class for all problems and by making them suffer he's look good. Sure, it didn't do a damned thing for anybody else but it made them feel like their misery was shared. Instead of blaming Jews he blamed industry. Instead of interring Jews he interred the Japs.

So let's raise taxes on everyone. Let's start taxing the poor. Let's tax the middle class. Let's tax everyone for everything at all times. Well, except for those who can adequately grease the wheels. And the Elite Class - the benevolent dictators - will continue to make sure we're in the gutter, all the while blaming someone else for it.

That's politics - cause problems. Cause dependency. Foist the blame on others. Punish those others. And whatever you do, do not actually fix a problem. Make it worse. Blame others for making it worse. Then you've got something else to tell people you're fixing.

This is why Pelosi actually said that unemployment checks are the best stimulus for the economy. Yeah. Way better than jobs.

This is why state workers in Cali wil get minimum wage unless having a union contract because the budget hasn't been passed. So they held hearing on a California State Rock. I shit you not.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Insanity is looking at what FDR did - which was take a severe recession and turn it into a depression - and try to emulate it.

Inability to understand simple English is what's going on here: http://economics.about.com/cs/businesscycles/a/depressions_2.htm

A depression is any economic downturn where real GDP declines by more than 10 percent. A recession is an economic downturn that is less severe.

Real GDP declined 33% starting in 1929, so FDR inherited an economic condition that was 3 times that of the definition, but I'm just using English.

Quote

He was elected in 1932, right? By 1941 we were still in the Depression.

You mean we were out, as GDP went positive, then in 37-38 the economy slipped back into a small depression. To say still infers there was no recovery, but then I apologize, I'm using English definition.

Quote

Then came WWII and the economy started having money circulated (war bonds - remember those?). People started working to build machines of death.

Yes, the first Great Republican Depression started in 1929, started recovery and then slipped back a little, the war then pulled us out. There was recovery under Hoovers massive tax increasee in 1932 and FDR's continued increases.

Quote

It showed that the widespread progressive villainization of corporations and businesses was not only useless but was counter-productive. FDR knew that by blaming some group or class for all problems and by making them suffer he's look good. Sure, it didn't do a damned thing for anybody else but it made them feel like their misery was shared. Instead of blaming Jews he blamed industry. Instead of interring Jews he interred the Japs.

The corps were not the fault, the trio Republican scum of Harding, Coolidge, Hoover were teh problem; businesses were just the recipients of their corruption.

Quote

So let's raise taxes on everyone. Let's start taxing the poor. Let's tax the middle class. Let's tax everyone for everything at all times. Well, except for those who can adequately grease the wheels. And the Elite Class - the benevolent dictators - will continue to make sure we're in the gutter, all the while blaming someone else for it.

Not sure what your rant means, but low taxes and the problem, you cannot show me a major federal tax cut that has helpd, and if you try to morph one out of thin air, you can't find 2 or 3 or 5. I can show the opposite. But don't let me a change an ideologue's perspective.

Quote

That's politics - cause problems. Cause dependency. Foist the blame on others. Punish those others. And whatever you do, do not actually fix a problem. Make it worse. Blame others for making it worse. Then you've got something else to tell people you're fixing.

OK, back to our regularly scheduled rant. BTW, quit the, "fair" argument, it's really tired.

Quote

This is why Pelosi actually said that unemployment checks are the best stimulus for the economy. Yeah. Way better than jobs.

They are, give a poor person 200 bucks, it enters the economy within an hour, give it to a rich person, it sits. Warren Buffet has said the same thing.

Quote

This is why state workers in Cali wil get minimum wage unless having a union contract because the budget hasn't been passed. So they held hearing on a California State Rock. I shit you not.

More info.

You seem to be able to research, show me a major fed tax cut since post WWI that has made things better. Major cuts as I see them:

- 1925

- 1946

- 1962ish (not huge)

- 1980-86 (massive)

- 2001

Can you think of other far-reaching tax cuts since WWI? Let's examine them and see the results.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Can you think of other far-reaching tax cuts since WWI? Let's examine them and see the results.

As recently mentioned, 1997.

The late 90s had several major changes:
1) dividends and long term capital gains tax reductions
2) roth IRA
3) incredible increase in the tax free gains for home sales. It played no small part in the real estate bubble.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

You seem to be able to research, show me a major fed tax cut since post WWI that has made things better.

Better for whom? That's the question, isn't it?

"Better" is a comparative term. Better than what? For whom?

Tax cuts are rarely good for progressives because tax cuts, by their nature, mean that the wealthy and middle class pay less. The poor don't get tax cuts because they don't pay taxes anyway.

On the other hand, the 1986 Tax Reform Act demonstrated that cutting taxes can increase revenues. The problem is that when spending increases at a greater rate than revenues increase tax cuts do no good.

Tell when tax increases did well. Hoover raised taxes by 260%. Yet the Depression conitnued. Recovery commenced and then they got clobbered. The tax increases did not work.

So, for whom did tax increases work out "better?" Or "worse?"

And it's subjective.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Can you think of other far-reaching tax cuts since WWI? Let's examine them and see the results.

As recently mentioned, 1997.

The late 90s had several major changes:
1) dividends and long term capital gains tax reductions
2) roth IRA
3) incredible increase in the tax free gains for home sales. It played no small part in the real estate bubble.

Nah, the bubble was only possible with 40-year low int rate that stayed too long. W/o the rate cuts, there would be no way to finance the mess and have such an artificial devaluation. Dropping 8% of cap gains isn;t a deal maker by any stretch, it didn't create artifical appreciation, it just allowed sellers to hang on to a little more of their ill-gotten gains.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

You seem to be able to research, show me a major fed tax cut since post WWI that has made things better.

Quote

Better for whom? That's the question, isn't it?

"Better" is a comparative term. Better than what? For whom?

Do we have to be fundamental here? Better for the mases, we know tax cuts are good for the rich on the front end, some rich benefit all teh way thru. Rarely do MC and poor ever benefit from a tax cut.

Quote

Tax cuts are rarely good for progressives because tax cuts, by their nature, mean that the wealthy and middle class pay less.

Nice try at making out the MC as people who actually pay taxes that matter and who are benefitted by tax cuts. McCain tried the same thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class

Leonard Beeghley, 2004: College educated workers with incomes considerably above-average incomes and compensation; a man making $57,000 and a woman making $40,000 may be typical.

William Thompson & Joseph Hickey, 2005: Doesn't define a MC

Dennis Gilbert, 2002: No middle class eitehr, but they have a lower MC Semi-professionals and craftsmen with a roughly average standard of living. Most have some college education and are white collar.

and upper MC: Highly educated (often with graduate degrees), most commonly salaried, professionals and middle management with large work autonomy

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _

So after all that, what does MC earn? 40k to 57k gross? That seems fair based on these definitions, hhas a college degree. So we're not talking average Joe here, a sthe title suggests, we're talking people who are above averge income and education who gross about 50k/yr. Now, let's see what they pay in taxes as compared to the big picture....

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

So if they make 50k gross average, they keep 40k, maybe less. 40k is a goodf round number for AGI. Per the graph they are barely into the top 50% brkt, right at the bottom. They're no where near the brkts that collectively pay 86% of the gross tax bill, IOW's they are barely over the group that pays 3% of the total tax bill. To be generous, to say they collectively pay even 10% of the tax bill is high, probably more like 5-7%. So, are you joining McCain and trying to tell us that MC folks are helped by a tax cut? And remember, MC means higher than the avergage person both in education and income. So you trying to make MC mean average isn't true. Many, shall I say most people walking around are well into that 32k AGI brkt who pay <3% of the total tax bill; the conservatives want to sucker these people into thinking a tax cuts is even noticeable to them.

So to answer your assertion that the poor don't pay taxes, NEITEHR DO THE MC EARNERS.

Quote

On the other hand, the 1986 Tax Reform Act demonstrated that cutting taxes can increase revenues. The problem is that when spending increases at a greater rate than revenues increase tax cuts do no good.

Revenues (receipts) never matched outlays. More importantly, all that military spending was longterm stimulus, meaning that w/o the gross military spending, receipts wouldn't have been near that either. There was no independent variable there with the spending, so we'll never knwo what gross tax cuts would do absent massive wasteful spending and the impact on receipts. I think it's fair to say that w/o the spending, tax receipts would be puny.

Compare that to Clinton, who raised taxes just 9% + GHWB's 3% and they both cut spending, esp military. Receipts were way up, way overreached outlays and there we had a surplus in time after balancing the budget. Bizzare thing is you hate the guy who did teh economy well and yet you claim not to be an ideologue, right?

Quote

Tell when tax increases did well. Hoover raised taxes by 260%. Yet the Depression conitnued. Recovery commenced and then they got clobbered. The tax increases did not work.

Tax increases worked on the front end and for 5 years, are you saying if we just would have kept the tax cuts that were est in 1925 alive that things would have come around? And what do you suggest the millions of homeless should do? Just wait it out? And what do you think the war did to the economy? It artificially stimulated it thru war spending, so teh gov operating on deficit spending worked, you certainlly agree, right? Unemp was 1 or 2% in 1944-45; that was due to deficit war spending and a 94% top brkt. What says you? Or are you gonna just duck out of that one too?

Quote

So, for whom did tax increases work out "better?" Or "worse?"

And it's subjective.

Yes, it's subjective. Wealthy business owners like you don't want it and it hurts on the front end, the poor and MC did much better and do much better under higher taxes.

BTW, I didn't see an aswewr to this:

You seem to be able to research, show me a major fed tax cut since post WWI that has made things better. Major cuts as I see them:

- 1925

- 1946

- 1962ish (not huge)

- 1980-86 (massive)

- 2001

Can you think of other far-reaching tax cuts since WWI? Let's examine them and see the results.

Shall I take as an acquiescence that you didn't respond that there are no tax cuts that helped the masses, the poor, the MC, even Upper MC? Quit being semantic and post some major cuts that helped the mases.

• Quote

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Do we have to be fundamental here? Better for the mases, we know tax cuts are good for the rich on the front end, some rich benefit all teh way thru. Rarely do MC and poor ever benefit from a tax cut.

If I have more money in my paycheck at the end of the week (because I'm taxed less) and the things I buy cost less (because business are taxed less), I'm getting a benefit from the tax cut.

That's as fundamental as it gets.

Quote

Wealthy business owners like you don't want it and it hurts on the front end,

Hey, Jerry - bet you didn't know you were a wealthy business owner, did you?

Quote

the poor and MC did much better and do much better under higher taxes.

Prove it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Do we have to be fundamental here? Better for the mases, we know tax cuts are good for the rich on the front end, some rich benefit all teh way thru. Rarely do MC and poor ever benefit from a tax cut.

If I have more money in my paycheck at the end of the week (because I'm taxed less) and the things I buy cost less (because business are taxed less), I'm getting a benefit from the tax cut.

That's as fundamental as it gets.

Quote

Wealthy business owners like you don't want it and it hurts on the front end,

Hey, Jerry - bet you didn't know you were a wealthy business owner, did you?

Quote

the poor and MC did much better and do much better under higher taxes.

Prove it.

I would love to see where he gets this crap

Posts little for sources and I am sure he aint dreamin this up

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

The late 90s had several major changes:
1) dividends and long term capital gains tax reductions
2) roth IRA
3) incredible increase in the tax free gains for home sales. It played no small part in the real estate bubble.

I would think the lack of income tax on home mortgage interest was more significant; that is what made paying off your debts seem like a poor financial choice.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I would think the lack of income tax on home mortgage interest was more significant; that is what made paying off your debts seem like a poor financial choice.

Only if you had enough other deductions (or the interest was sufficiently large) to be able to itemize, correct?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

My apologies to the people of New England. I mistakenly said in my Monday column that Representative Dean Heller comes from Vermont. He comes from Nevada, where 64pc of all home sales are from foreclosures and unemployment has reached 14pc.

Be that as it may, there is no dispute that he described America’s long-term unemployed as “hobos”. Was he just careless, or deliberately evoking the spirit of the Great Depression?

Reading William Manchester’s Glory And The Dream over the weekend, I came across this remark from President Herbert Hoover, blurted out famously in the cruellest year of 1932.

“Nobody is actually starving. The hobos, for example, are better fed than they have ever been. Hobos are eating well, in fact one had ten meals in a single day.”

Hoover took deep offence at reports that children were dying of malnutrition. This is not surprising for a man who first made his global reputation organizing food aid for Belgian children at the end of World War One

By then Hoover had lost the plot, a common problem for those over the age of 45 who stop thinking, stop observing, and rely reflexively on whatever set of views worked for them in the past.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100006808/hobos-and-welfare-for-americas-rich/

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

BTW, the key to getting out of the Great Depression was raising taxes 260%

Actually it was WW2 that did it..... But hey, you get to have an opinion.

There was another recession in 1939... so that just shows that your theory is incorrect.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

From now until Nov. 2, the Republican Party will be the party of unemployment. The logic is straightforward: The more people who are unemployed on Election Day, the better the prospects for Republicans in the fall election. They expect, with good cause, that voters will hold the Democrats responsible for the state of the economy. Therefore anything that the Republicans can do to make the economy worse between now and then will help their election prospects.

While it might be bad taste to accuse a major national political party of deliberately wanting to throw people out of jobs, there is no other plausible explanation for the Republicans' behavior. The Republicans have balked at supporting nearly every bill that had any serious hope of creating or keeping jobs, most recently filibustering on bills that provided aid to state and local governments and extending unemployment benefits. The result of the Republicans' actions, unless they are reversed quickly, is that hundreds of thousands more workers will be thrown out of work by Election Day.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/147447/republicans_want_as_many_unemployed_people_as_possible%2C_because_they_think_it_will_get_them_elected/

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[champu 1]

Quote

So after all that, what does MC earn? 40k to 57k gross? That seems fair based on these definitions, hhas a college degree. So we're not talking average Joe here, a sthe title suggests, we're talking people who are above averge income and education who gross about 50k/yr. Now, let's see what they pay in taxes as compared to the big picture....

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

So if they make 50k gross average, they keep 40k, maybe less. 40k is a goodf round number for AGI. Per the graph they are barely into the top 50% brkt, right at the bottom. They're no where near the brkts that collectively pay 86% of the gross tax bill, IOW's they are barely over the group that pays 3% of the total tax bill. To be generous, to say they collectively pay even 10% of the tax bill is high, probably more like 5-7%. So, are you joining McCain and trying to tell us that MC folks are helped by a tax cut?

First, what do you mean when you say if they make 50k and keep 40k then 40k is their AGI?

Second, please explain what a group's overall contribution to the federal government's tax receipts has to do with what a tax cut means to that group.

/edited to fix ambiguous "them".

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Hey, Jerry - bet you didn't know you were a wealthy business owner, did you?

No. Contrary to popular belief, I do not own the two bedroom apartment in which I presently reside...

Yes, yes. Just because I believe that the wealthy shouldn't be punished does not mean that I am wealthy myself. I'll put my net worth against Lucky's any day. Yet, he seems to believe that I should pay more because I have struggled my whole life.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Give a poor person 200 bucks, it enters the economy within an hour, give it to a rich person, it sits. Warren Buffet has said the same thing.

exactly
(you're doing good work here lucky)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Quote

Give a poor person 200 bucks, it enters the economy within an hour, give it to a rich person, it sits. Warren Buffet has said the same thing.

exactly
(you're doing good work here lucky)

Agreed!

I'm sure Lucky's converted dozens of posters here to a more progressive way of thinking. Probably hundreds!

. . =(_8^(1)

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Give a poor person 200 bucks, it enters the economy within an hour, give it to a rich person, it sits. Warren Buffet has said the same thing.

exactly
(you're doing good work here lucky)

Agreed!

I'm sure Lucky's converted dozens of posters here to a more progressive way of thinking. Probably hundreds!

it's dirty work but someone's got to counter the inane crap from the righties

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Consider: in 1928 the richest 1 percent of Americans received 23.9 percent of the nation's total income. After that, the share going to the richest 1 percent steadily declined. New Deal reforms, followed by World War II, the GI Bill and the Great Society expanded the circle of prosperity. By the late 1970s the top 1 percent raked in only 8 to 9 percent of America's total annual income. But after that, inequality began to widen again, and income reconcentrated at the top. By 2007 the richest 1 percent were back to where they were in 1928—with 23.5 percent of the total.

Each of America's two biggest economic crashes occurred in the year immediately following these twin peaks—in 1929 and 2008. This is no mere coincidence. When most of the gains from economic growth go to a small sliver of Americans at the top, the rest don't have enough purchasing power to buy what the economy is capable of producing. America's median wage, adjusted for inflation, has barely budged for decades. Between 2000 and 2007 it actually dropped. Under these circumstances the only way the middle class can boost its purchasing power is to borrow, as it did with gusto.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/147469/we%27re_in_a_recession_because_the_rich_are_raking_in_an_absurd_portion_of_wealth/

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

So after all that, what does MC earn? 40k to 57k gross? That seems fair based on these definitions, hhas a college degree. So we're not talking average Joe here, a sthe title suggests, we're talking people who are above averge income and education who gross about 50k/yr. Now, let's see what they pay in taxes as compared to the big picture....

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

So if they make 50k gross average, they keep 40k, maybe less. 40k is a goodf round number for AGI. Per the graph they are barely into the top 50% brkt, right at the bottom. They're no where near the brkts that collectively pay 86% of the gross tax bill, IOW's they are barely over the group that pays 3% of the total tax bill. To be generous, to say they collectively pay even 10% of the tax bill is high, probably more like 5-7%. So, are you joining McCain and trying to tell us that MC folks are helped by a tax cut?

Quote

First, what do you mean when you say if they make 50k and keep 40k then 40k is their AGI?

Gross 50k, AGI (adjusted Gross income) ~40k, then taxed on that, will keep less depending upon writeoffs.

Quote

Second, please explain what a group's overall contribution to the federal government's tax receipts has to do with what a tax cut means to that group.

If you're in the typical 50k gross brkt, as many people are, a tax cut will barely be noticeable since your brkt doesn't pay taxes that are very significant. If you are top 10% then a tax cut will be massively significant.

• Quote

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Give a poor person 200 bucks, it enters the economy within an hour, give it to a rich person, it sits. Warren Buffet has said the same thing.

exactly
(you're doing good work here lucky)

.... as are you.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Consider: in 1928 the richest 1 percent of Americans received 23.9 percent of the nation's total income. After that, the share going to the richest 1 percent steadily declined. New Deal reforms, followed by World War II, the GI Bill and the Great Society expanded the circle of prosperity. By the late 1970s the top 1 percent raked in only 8 to 9 percent of America's total annual income. But after that, inequality began to widen again, and income reconcentrated at the top. By 2007 the richest 1 percent were back to where they were in 1928—with 23.5 percent of the total.

Each of America's two biggest economic crashes occurred in the year immediately following these twin peaks—in 1929 and 2008. This is no mere coincidence. When most of the gains from economic growth go to a small sliver of Americans at the top, the rest don't have enough purchasing power to buy what the economy is capable of producing. America's median wage, adjusted for inflation, has barely budged for decades. Between 2000 and 2007 it actually dropped. Under these circumstances the only way the middle class can boost its purchasing power is to borrow, as it did with gusto.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/147469/we%27re_in_a_recession_because_the_rich_are_raking_in_an_absurd_portion_of_wealth/

The 3 times taxes have been ultra-low are:

- 1925 = top brkt cut to 25%

- 1986 = top brkt cut to 28%

- 2001 = top brkt cut to 35%

Other than that taxes have been way higher. Look at the disasters taht followed these tax cuts respectively:

- Great Depression

- Massive runaway debt, 1990 recession

- More massive debt, Great Recession

And what seperated these 3 massive tax cuts respectively:

- Revenue act of 1932; 25% to 63% + FDR's tax hikes eventually to 94% at peak of war

- GHWB and Clinton hiking taxes from 28% to 40%

- We'll see what Obama does, but nothing so far and massive debt accrual


After the Great Republican Depression and after fascist Ronny's giveaway to the rich, there was great healing associated with these tax hikes, only to be pissed away with the next tax cut. Amazing how 80 years of constant, repeatable history still isn't enough to convince conservative drones that tax cuts are horrible.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Amazing how 80 years of constant, repeatable history still isn't enough to convince conservative drones that tax cuts are horrible.

Yes, of course...

How stupid of people to not realize that they're better off when they have less money in their paycheck at the end of the week and everything they buy is more expensive.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706