McCain's Economic Ignorance: It's the Economic Stupidity, Stupid

Summer Rain wrote:

Of course, the socialism created thus far represents only the transfer of wealth to the wealthy, propping up their failing businesses and declining purchasing power with funds transferred from the Treasury and the lower 95% of the population. The bottom 50% of earners (those making under +/-$40,000 per year) have access to 12% of the nation's weath, while the top 1% controls 55% of the nation's wealth) makes it impossible to see a way for the free market to solve the nation's fiscal problems. Still, the solutions proposed thus far by Barack Obama involve heavy regulation and federal funding of private business to stimulate the economy and solve national problems. He may be the last best hope for the survival of large scale capitalism in the US. I think the WSJ is recognizing that.

The WSJ did not recognize that. Yet again you are spreading lies. Below is the ENTIRE WSJ piece.
Also
-income is NOT THE SAME as wealth
-the richest 1% earned 22% of all income but accounted for 40% of the total taxes paid.
-The number of new millionaires nearly doubled there are MORE people becoming wealthy as compared to your claims of the rich are getting richer

July 21, 2008; Page A12
Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a way to make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.
The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.
Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.

PART 2

We also know from income mobility data that a very large percentage in the top 1% are "new rich," not inheritors of fortunes. There is rapid turnover in the ranks of the highest income earners, so much so that people who started in the top 1% of income in the 1980s and 1990s suffered the largest declines in earnings of any income group over the subsequent decade, according to Treasury Department studies of actual tax returns. It's hard to stay king of the hill in America for long.
The most amazing part of this story is the leap in the number of Americans who declared adjusted gross income of more than $1 million from 2003 to 2006. The ranks of U.S. millionaires nearly doubled to 354,000 from 181,000 in a mere three years after the tax cuts.
This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would grow faster, which they did; investors would declare more capital gains and companies would pay out more dividends, which they did; the rich would invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would rise, which did happen.
The idea that this has been a giveaway to the rich is a figment of the left's imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006 from $136 billion in 2003. No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 from 3.5% in 2003.
This year, thanks to the credit mess and slower growth, taxes paid by the rich may fall and the deficit will rise.(The nonstimulating tax rebates will also hurt the deficit.) Mr. Obama proposes to close this deficit by raising tax rates on the rich to their highest levels since the late 1970s. The very groups like the Congressional Budget Office and Tax Policy Center that wrongly predicted that the 2003 investment tax cuts would cost about $1 trillion in lost revenue are now saying that repealing those tax cuts would gain similar amounts. We'll wager it'd gain a lot less.
If Mr. Obama does succeed in raising tax rates on the rich, we'd also wager that the rich share of tax payments would fall. The last time tax rates were as high as the Senator wants them -- the Carter years -- the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes, half of the 40% share they pay today. Why? Because they either worked less, earned less, or they found ways to shelter income from taxes so it was never reported to the IRS as income.
The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and last week's IRS data provide more powerful validation of that proposition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Econ 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
The WSJ did not recognize that. Yet again you are spreading lies. Below is the ENTIRE WSJ piece.
Also
-income is NOT THE SAME as wealth
-the richest 1% earned 22% of all income but accounted for 40% of the total taxes paid.
-The number of new millionaires nearly doubled there are MORE people becoming wealthy as compared to your claims of the rich are getting richer
July 21, 2008; Page A12
Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a way to make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.
The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.
Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA MONEY:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

CAN AMERICA TRUST JOHN JUDGMENT?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Econ 101 wrote:

PART 2
We also know from income mobility data that a very large percentage in the top 1% are "new rich," not inheritors of fortunes. There is rapid turnover in the ranks of the highest income earners, so much so that people who started in the top 1% of income in the 1980s and 1990s suffered the largest declines in earnings of any income group over the subsequent decade, according to Treasury Department studies of actual tax returns. It's hard to stay king of the hill in America for long.
The most amazing part of this story is the leap in the number of Americans who declared adjusted gross income of more than $1 million from 2003 to 2006. The ranks of U.S. millionaires nearly doubled to 354,000 from 181,000 in a mere three years after the tax cuts.
This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would grow faster, which they did; investors would declare more capital gains and companies would pay out more dividends, which they did; the rich would invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would rise, which did happen.
The idea that this has been a giveaway to the rich is a figment of the left's imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006 from $136 billion in 2003. No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 from 3.5% in 2003.
This year, thanks to the credit mess and slower growth, taxes paid by the rich may fall and the deficit will rise.(The nonstimulating tax rebates will also hurt the deficit.) Mr. Obama proposes to close this deficit by raising tax rates on the rich to their highest levels since the late 1970s. The very groups like the Congressional Budget Office and Tax Policy Center that wrongly predicted that the 2003 investment tax cuts would cost about $1 trillion in lost revenue are now saying that repealing those tax cuts would gain similar amounts. We'll wager it'd gain a lot less.
If Mr. Obama does succeed in raising tax rates on the rich, we'd also wager that the rich share of tax payments would fall. The last time tax rates were as high as the Senator wants them -- the Carter years -- the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes, half of the 40% share they pay today. Why? Because they either worked less, earned less, or they found ways to shelter income from taxes so it was never reported to the IRS as income.
The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and last week's IRS data provide more powerful validation of that proposition.

But we also have noted that trickle-down economics -- that's what we called supply- side economics in those days -- trickle down economics didn't work very well. Very little trickled down to the poor. The gap between the rich and the poor began to widen during the Reagan administration and has continued to widen since then. We also saw that deregulation did not always work. We had a savings and loan crisis partly because of the deregulated financial markets. So, yes, privatization and deregulation are good up to a point but let's remember that there are other objectives in our economy as well.

Econ 101 wrote:

PART 2
...This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would grow faster, which they did; investors would declare more capital gains and companies would pay out more dividends, which they did; the rich would invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would rise, which did happen.
now saying that repealing those tax cuts would gain similar amounts. We'll wager it'd gain a lot less..

We are seeing right now that supply-side economics tried for another time under the second Bush administration, the Bush, Jr. administration, is not working. We have a $400-some-odd billion deficit and to parody or to use the phrase of David Stockman, as far as the eye can see. We are going to have to pay the piper at some point. There is going to be a day of reckoning for that deficit particularly as baby boomers mature and have to eventually collect Social Security and Medicare.

Summer Rain wrote:

<quoted text>
You are so right! And then the Republicans managing the stores will rip him off for gas money. Karma...
Arizona Donors Give McCain Cold Shoulder
Many Big Time Bundlers in Likely GOP Nominee's Home State Haven't Taken Up Their Senator's Cause
"...Sen. John McCain's Arizona campaign chairman, fellow Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, is missing from McCain's list of 26 Arizona bundlers who have raised $50,000 or more in contributions for his presidential campaign....another notable figure missing from McCain’s list is the Arizona state Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen. Pullen’s absence from even relatively minor fund-raising is one sign that conservative state Republicans might be disenchanted with McCain....the better part of the state's GOP political leadership is not listed as McCain bundlers for any amount, including former Arizona Gov. Jane Dee Hull, who bore the brunt of McCain's infamous temper on several occasions, and Reps. Trent Franks, John Shadegg and Jeff Flake. One elected official, Rep. Rick Renzi, had been McCain’s Arizona co-campaign chairman, but resigned after he was indicted earlier this year on corruption charges....McCain has a history of raising substantial campaign funds from his wife’s ownership in Hensley & Co., distributor of Budweiser and other beer brands with sales estimated at $300 million or more a year...."
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/ari...

WHAT ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN AND THE KEATING 5?
WHAT ABOUT THE TAXPAYERS?
Charles Keating was convicted of racketeering and fraud in both state and federal court after his Lincoln Savings & Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $3.4 billion.
John McCain and the Rick Renzi 35-Count Indictment
BY:PALERMO read more Huffington Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Has anybody been paying attention this? I think we need like a chart showing the number of Republicans leaving public office, whether in handcuffs or in embarrassment.

As a result of the raid, Renzi is stepping down from his seat on the House Intelligence Committee, according to a statement from his office obtained Thursday evening by Roll Call.
“Today, the FBI came to my family’s business to obtain documents related to their investigation,” Renzi said.“I view these actions as the first step in bringing out the truth. Until this matter is resolved, I will take a leave of absence from the House Intelligence Committee. I intend to fully cooperate with this investigation.”
Posted on April 20, 2007 by fruitfly
Doolittle has been under fire for paying his wife’s company, Sierra Dominion, a 15 percent commission on all contributions that the company raised for Doolittle’s campaign committee and leadership PAC. Her only other clients were Abramoff’s former firm, Greenberg Traurig; Abramoff’s former restaurant Signatures; and the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council, which Ed Buckham, a former chief of staff to ex-Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), created.

Did you see Obama leaving his plane trying to look presidential smacking his lips and chomping his jaws on chewing gum? He looked like a hip-hop rapper dressed up for church rather than a president. That certainly is the picture of "the ugly American." Get him an etiquette advisor!

Rotten to the Core wrote:

Did you see Obama leaving his plane trying to look presidential smacking his lips and chomping his jaws on chewing gum? He looked like a hip-hop rapper dressed up for church rather than a president. That certainly is the picture of "the ugly American." Get him an etiquette advisor!

typical McCainiac spam. get a clue and a mirror. Just don't scare yourself.

yesterday McCain screwed up about Iraq again.. he mispoke about what the surge was and when it started.. and the shake he said it protected, was really assasinated during the surge.... and Irq is supposed to be his strong point?

He's another sock puppet for the neo-cons

Coolmind wrote:

yesterday McCain screwed up about Iraq again.. he mispoke about what the surge was and when it started.. and the shake he said it protected, was really assasinated during the surge.... and Irq is supposed to be his strong point?
He's another sock puppet for the neo-cons

hey dopey air head, you should pay more attention to the stupidity from obama's hatred for this Country, he can't even give credit to those who made it possible for him to be there in the first place.
Your ignorance and hatred for this Country and disrespect for my Flag, proves your obama's recruit. Which is why I've lost all respect for democrats, because they can't even keep their own party from crossing lines.
Just because you don't like a politicians views based on issues, doesn't give you the right to disrespect our troops,Military, this COUNTRY, or Flag.
You are an idiot, and a terrorist sympathizer who needs to be escorted out of this Country. And don't come back you moron.

And another thing air bags who claims to have a "cool mind",
You said "imagine an honorable USA"
Ones like you are the ones who bring shame to this Country.
perhaps if you would set a better example, and find ways to make this country better, besides flipping my Flag upside down, more people would follow your lead.
Who are you trying to impress anyway?

Awwwwwwwww what's the matter children. Truth hit a nerve? That you have to judge your own pathetic posts? Signs of desparation.
All the lightbulbs in the world won't change the minds of TRUE American's who despise the likes of your ilk.
MORONS who disrespect this Country and don't have the balls to say why they judge my post without a written explaination. FOOLS! Don't let our border hit you in the ass on the way out.

wyojake wrote:

<quoted text>
typical McCainiac spam. get a clue and a mirror. Just don't scare yourself.

SPAM? They showed it LIVE on FOX. Perhaps if you would watch real news you would have known that.Sorry you miss out on what's happening in this Country due to your head stuck up obamas ass.

larry g wrote:

<quoted text>
you sound very bitter

No I sound like an american wanting our country back from the brink of socialism.

Jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>No I sound like an american wanting our country back from the brink of socialism.

now you sound silly

Coolmind wrote:

yesterday McCain screwed up about Iraq again.. he mispoke about what the surge was and when it started.. and the shake he said it protected, was really assasinated during the surge.... and Irq is supposed to be his strong point?
He's another sock puppet for the neo-cons

Typical kool-aid drinking member of the George(the russian) soris fan club. It's twits like you who pay attention to sound bites instead of what is important solutions to problems in this country. All you do is show people that to be a liberal you have to have an IQ of -12. There is a difference between Fox News and O'Reilly and Hannity that are commentary shows based on opinion and yes their opinions are mostly conservative just as CNN the communist news network and the New Yuk Times are liberal stooges for George Soros and moveon.org .Get a life.

I've always been impressed with John McCain's cool, calm, collected demeanor. The man simply doesn't rattle or come undone.
He's the type of man you want prowling the neighborhood packing some heat.

http://vietnamveteransagainstmccain.com/

+++Democrats want health care for illegals!!!!++++

Whichever Democrats vote/support this------make sure that you vote them out of office!!!!

Contact your Congress members and say "NO WAY"
http://www.numbersusa.com

CNN transcripts
Lou Dobbs Show
July 23, 2008

Lisa Sylvester: The group Progressive Democrats of America wants to end the Iraq war and plow the war funding into setting up a system of universal health care.

Tim Carpenter, Progressive Democrats of America: We believe in health care for all. We make it very clear Progressive Democrats of America our goal fundamentally is to make sure that all of us have health care, all of us within the U.S. borders have health care.

Sylvester: And by all in U.S. borders, he says that includes everyone in the United States, including upwards of 12 million illegal aliens. The group is urging the Democratic Party to adopt a plank at the party's convention in Denver, guaranteeing accessible health care for all.

Congressman John Conyers from Michigan, a leading pro amnesty advocate in Congress, is the first top Democratic delegate to sign up for the Progressive Democrat's platform on universal health care. Critics charge that offering health care to millions of illegal aliens will encourage even more illegal immigration and is an attack on the concept of U.S. citizenship.

Tom Tancredo: There'' plenty of government subsidized health care to go around. Now we're adding another dimension to that, people who are here who are not even supposed to be here, people who are not citizens."

Cont'd through link..........

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/2...