# Trump Says The Way President Obama Is Running The Country Is "Stupid"



## Curt James (Jul 18, 2012)

*Trump Says The Way President Obama Is Running The Country Is "Stupid"*

By Christian Hill, June 13, 2012

The United States could soon become a large-scale Spain or Greece, teetering on the edge of financial ruin.

That's according to Donald Trump, who painted a very ugly picture of where this country is headed under its current leadership. Trump made the comments during a recent appearance on Fox News' "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren."

According to Trump, the United States is no longer a rich country. "When you're not rich, you have to go out and borrow money. We're borrowing from the Chinese and others. We're up to $16 trillion in debt."

It's clear that Trump holds President Barack Obama responsible for the ballooning debt. Trump stated that the way Obama is running the country is "stupid."

He goes on to point out that the downgrade of U.S. debt is inevitable. 







?We are going up to $16 trillion [in debt] very soon, and it?s going to be a lot higher than that before he gets finished. When you have [debt] in the $21-$22 trillion, you are talking about a downgrade no matter how you cut it.?

Ballooning debt and a credit downgrade aren?t Trump?s only worries for this country. He says that the official unemployment rate of 8.2 percent ?isn?t a real number? and that the real figure is closer to 15 percent to 16 percent. He even mentioned that some believe the unemployment rate to be as high as 21 percent.

?Right now, frankly, the country isn?t doing well,? Trump added, ?Recession may be a nice word.?

While 15 percent to 16 percent unemployment, a looming credit downgrade, and ballooning debt are a bleak outlook for the United States, they are hardly as alarming as the scenario laid out by another economist.

Without earning celebrity status or having his own television show, Robert Wiedemer did something else that grabbed headlines across the country: He accurately predicted the economic collapse that almost sank the United States.

In 2006, Wiedemer and a team of economists foresaw the coming collapse of the U.S. housing market, equity markets, private debt, and consumer spending, and published their findings in the book America?s Bubble Economy.

But Wiedemer?s outlook for the U.S. economy today makes Trump?s observations seem almost optimistic.

Where Trump sees ballooning debt and a credit downgrade, Wiedemer sees much more widespread economic destruction.

In a recent interview for his newest book Aftershock, Wiedemer says, ?The data is clear, 50% unemployment, a 90% stock market drop, and 100% annual inflation . . . starting in 2012.?

When the host questioned such wild claims, Wiedemer unapologetically displayed shocking charts backing up his allegations, and then ended his argument with, ?You see, the medicine will become the poison.?

The interview has become a wake-up call for those unprepared (or unwilling) to acknowledge an ugly truth: The country?s financial ?rescue? devised in Washington has failed miserably.

The blame lies squarely on those whose job it was to avoid the exact situation we find ourselves in, including current Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and former Chairman Alan Greenspan, tasked with preventing financial meltdowns and keeping the nation?s economy strong through monetary and credit policies.

At one point, Wiedemer even calls out Bernanke, saying that his ?money from heaven will be the path to hell.?

But it?s not just the grim predictions that are causing the sensation; rather, it?s the comprehensive blueprint for economic survival that?s really commanding global attention.

The interview offers realistic, step-by-step solutions that the average hard-working American can easily follow.

The overwhelming amount of feedback to publicize the interview, initially screened for a private audience, came with consequences as various online networks repeatedly shut it down and affiliates refused to house the content.

Bernanke and Greenspan were not about to support Wiedemer publicly, nor were the mainstream media.

?People were sitting up and taking notice, and they begged us to make the interview public so they could easily share it,? said Newsmax Financial Publisher Aaron DeHoog, ?but unfortunately, it kept getting pulled.?

?Our real concern,? DeHoog added, ?is what if only half of Wiedemer?s predictions come true?

?That?s a scary thought for sure. But we want the average American to be prepared, and that is why we will continue to push this video to as many outlets as we can. We want the word to spread.?

From *Trump Says The Way President Obama Is Running The Country Is "Stupid"*


----------



## LAM (Jul 18, 2012)

fucking pathetic...the increase in the deficit has been debunked time and time again as there was a 1.2T budget deficit in 10-01-2009.   

never liked Trump always thought he was a douche-bag, he flips commercial property or gets paid to stick his cheesy name on the side of a building...wow...what would the US do with out you Donald.  

the capitalists want Mittens in there so he can do the standard GOP supply-side tax cuts that haven't worked in US history and that will be the end of the working class in the US.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jul 19, 2012)

Good, if Trump disagrees we may be going in the right direction. Who takes business advice from someone who declares bankruptcy the way most people watch the Olympics...once every few years.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Jul 19, 2012)

Obviously hiring gobs of federal employees, printing money so states don't have to layoff state employees to balance their own budgets and financing green jobs with printed money, when there's little to no demand for the products they produce, has had little effect so now what?

I don't care where it all started, all I care about is how we're gonna fix it.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jul 19, 2012)

LAM said:


> fucking pathetic...the increase in the deficit has been debunked time and time again as there was a 1.2T budget deficit in 10-01-2009.
> 
> never liked Trump always thought he was a douche-bag, he flips commercial property or gets paid to stick his cheesy name on the side of a building...wow...what would the US do with out you Donald.
> 
> the capitalists want Mittens in there so he can do the standard GOP supply-side tax cuts that haven't worked in US history and that will be the end of the working class in the US.



did you even read the post?? lol. he says 16 trillion DEBT, when barry hussein took over our debt was 9+trillion, easy math there.

the deficit isn't mentioned, in case you don't know, debt and deficit are two different things? and barry hussein was pres in 2009


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jul 19, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> did you even read the post?? lol. he says 16 trillion DEBT, when barry hussein took over our debt was 9+trillion, easy math there.
> 
> the deficit isn't mentioned, in case you don't know, debt and deficit are two different things? and barry hussein was pres in 2009



Actually, it's not easy math. On day 1 of Obama's presidency, he didn't eliminate all spending from every program that every president that preceded him passed. Also, you have to realize that the person paying interest at the $9 trillion mark is at a considerable disadvantage in keeping the debt low as compared to the person paying interest at $0. You act like its black and white while it's shades of grey. Take the Iraq war, Obama is responsible for continuing this war but what percentage of it's debt is attributable to him? They may have spent X since he took office, but you also have to factor in the fact that had he been president when we started that war, we would have never gotten in to it in the first place. If some asshole drove my car in the ditch I'm not going to fault the guy pulling it out for getting a couple of scratches on it. Obama hasn't done dick for creating jobs, but very little of the debt or even the deficit is driven by him. He inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit and it's actually lower than that now.


----------



## Arnold (Jul 19, 2012)

well I guess the US could just file bankruptcy, isn't that how Mr. Trump cuts his losses and makes more money.


----------



## heckler7 (Jul 19, 2012)

^^^coming from a man who filed bankruptcy several times and is an entertainer, he'll say anything to be in the news


----------



## IronAddict (Jul 19, 2012)

OMG! This is the rights stance, this is just very sad. You know, I think the only donald trump I can tolerate would be...

The Time - Donald Trump (Black Version) HQ - YouTube


----------



## NVRBDR (Jul 19, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> Actually, it's not easy math. On day 1 of Obama's presidency, he didn't eliminate all spending from every program that every president that preceded him passed. Also, you have to realize that the person paying interest at the $9 trillion mark is at a considerable disadvantage in keeping the debt low as compared to the person paying interest at $0. You act like its black and white while it's shades of grey. Take the Iraq war, Obama is responsible for continuing this war but what percentage of it's debt is attributable to him? They may have spent X since he took office, but you also have to factor in the fact that had he been president when we started that war, we would have never gotten in to it in the first place. If some asshole drove my car in the ditch I'm not going to fault the guy pulling it out for getting a couple of scratches on it, (*barry dumped a load of manure  on your car already stuck in the ditch, he didn't pull you out)  *Obama hasn't done dick for creating jobs, but very little of the debt or even the deficit is driven by him. He inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit and it's actually lower than that now.



NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Treasury Department on Wednesday reported that $164.4 billion was added to the federal budget deficit in November -- bringing the total deficit for the first two months of the fiscal year to $401.6 billion.
By comparison, the budget deficit for all of fiscal year *2008 was $455 billion*, according to the Treasury. No where near 1.4 trillion

barry also promised to pull out troops by 3/31/2008, no longer than 16 months to complete. He said on several occasions during his democratic debates, here is a link for you. therefore, he is responsible for debt acquired from war, for no less than the months he didn't keep his promise
<font color="#b22222">[video=youtube;4WYTKj8pU5M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4WYTKj8pU5M[/video]



Dec, 2011.?Today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year,? the president said in a midday appearance at the White House. Anticipating what he called ?another season of homecomings,? he declared, ?Our troops will definitely be home for the holidays.?


----------



## GreenGiant (Jul 20, 2012)




----------



## LAM (Jul 20, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> did you even read the post?? lol. he says 16 trillion DEBT, when barry hussein took over our debt was 9+trillion, easy math there.
> 
> the deficit isn't mentioned, in case you don't know, debt and deficit are two different things? and barry hussein was pres in 2009



it sure is easy math....

take the income of the federal government in Oct of 2009 of 2268.5B
Federal Government Current Receipts (FGRECPT) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

and subtract that from the expenditures in Oct of 2009 of 3537.9
Federal Government: Current Expenditures (FGEXPND) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

*and you get an annual budget deficit of (-1269.4B) before Obama even set foot in the White House.*  x4 years = (-5077.6B)  then add in the cost of actual SPENDING via legislation from the Obama admin from TARP and extended unemployment benefits, etc. and the NEW SPENDING is about 1T


----------



## jay_steel (Jul 20, 2012)

WTF is a combat troop lol... I served for over 10 years and did multiple tours... EVERY ONE OVER SEAS IS A COMBAT TROOP.... NAVY, MARINES, ARMY, AIR FORCE... Male or Female you are a combat troop.


----------



## jay_steel (Jul 20, 2012)

Business is a strategy... Trump used filing bankrupt as the most efficient way to save his income. To me its just like a street fight, when your life is at jeopardy are you going to fight fair or use every thing you have in hands reach. Trump is a brilliant man and may not have the same morals that every one else does, but no one can disagree that he gets the job done and has been successful.


----------



## LAM (Jul 20, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> WTF is a combat troop lol... I served for over 10 years and did multiple tours... EVERY ONE OVER SEAS IS A COMBAT TROOP.... NAVY, MARINES, ARMY, AIR FORCE... Male or Female you are a combat troop.



not really.  think about the people in administration, supply, etc. they are not combat troops


----------



## jay_steel (Jul 20, 2012)

Tell any of those admin, supply, and ect troops that have been under attack in convoys, driven through IED's, that have purple hearts, and combat action badges/combat action ribbons they are can not be considered a combat troop.


----------



## Arnold (Jul 20, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> Business is a strategy... Trump used filing bankrupt as the most efficient way to save his income. To me its just like a street fight, when your life is at jeopardy are you going to fight fair or use every thing you have in hands reach. Trump is a brilliant man and may not have the same morals that every one else does, but no one can disagree that he gets the job done and has been successful.



and he is a hypocrite.


----------



## jay_steel (Jul 20, 2012)

Prince said:


> and he is a hypocrite.



probably so but name one successful person that has massive amounts of media attention that is not.


----------



## Arnold (Jul 20, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> probably so but name one successful person that has massive amounts of media attention that is not.



so u r saying in order to be successful you have to be a hypocrite?


----------



## jay_steel (Jul 20, 2012)

what most people say to the media and what they actually do to become successful are two different things. Look at every IFBB pro. I only use muscle tech, I only use this, but in reality there are many other variables. Not saying it is right, but no one is perfect when they have the media on there face like that. Of course every one in general will say one thing to save face or buy popularity. I measure him on the amount of success he has, whether or not you believe in his business aspects. The man is one of the richest men in the world. 

Everyone will take every edge they can to put them selves a head of the competition even if it goes against there morals and ethics. (I know there is a small % that do abide by their personal morals and ethics so the term everyone is just a figure of speech) 

This is my opinion and Prince I have been wrong on many occasions so...


----------



## LAM (Jul 20, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> Business is a strategy... Trump used filing bankrupt as the most efficient way to save his income.



and when the individual files bankruptcy due to say an illness, that debt follows them to the grave and their income is not protected.  while the person who is part of a "corporation" is protected.  there are 2 sets of laws in the US, one for those with money and another for those without....


----------



## NVRBDR (Jul 20, 2012)

Prince said:


> and he is a hypocrite.




c'mon prince?^^^that's true for all people at some point through out their life, if not all their life. Anyone who says different is just a liar and a hypocrite

ie, accusing someone for what they did wrong, when you've doe the exact same thing, yesterday. etc...

I am not a fan of the combover king, but the hypocrite card shouldn't be played, unless he is a mute monk in a convent for life, or stuck on a deserted island by himself


----------



## squigader (Jul 20, 2012)

Trump is a shady as fuck businessperson. Enough said.


----------



## IronAddict (Jul 24, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> ie, accusing someone for what they did wrong, when you've doe the exact same thing, yesterday. etc...
> 
> I am not a fan of the combover king, but the hypocrite card shouldn't be played, unless he is a mute monk in a convent for life, or stuck on a deserted island by himself



Now we're getting to the crux of the matter. 

This applies to all those feckless politicians who have nothing to add to our tale of grief, except for pointing fingers and a bunch of hate.


----------



## Arnold (Jul 24, 2012)

squigader said:


> Trump is a shady as fuck businessperson. Enough said.



yup.


----------



## Swiper (Jul 24, 2012)

*Presidential busts: The worst of all: Barack Obama (2009-?)*

He took office at a time when the U.S. economy was on its worst slide in 75 years, but pushed policies using borrowed money that were more meant to preserve government jobs than broadly help the private sector where the great majority of Americans work, ensuring the jobs crisis continued.

He railed against the heavy spending and big deficits of his predecessor, but blithely backed budgets that had triple the deficits ever seen in American history.

He promised a smart, sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health care system, but ended up giving us a Byzantine mess promoted to the public with myths: that offering subsidized care to tens of millions of people would save money; that people would keep their own doctors; that access to care wouldn?t change; and that rationing would never happen.

He promised a more sophisticated approach to the economy than that of his predecessor, but had so little common sense that his health law actually gave businesses a big financial incentive to discontinue providing health insurance to their employees.

He offered hosannas to genius entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs in his prepared remarks, but when speaking off the cuff betrayed his faculty-lounge view of the world, saying of businesspeople, ?if you?ve been successful, you didn?t get there on your own.?

He swore to bring overdue oversight and honest accounting to the corporate world, but made flagrantly dishonest claims about General Motors paying back its government loans that would have triggered a criminal fraud investigation in the private sector.

He promised to set a high new standard for ethics in the White House, but used a baffling claim of executive privilege to shield his embattled attorney general from the repercussions of a cover-up involving the death of a federal law enforcement officer.

He denounced his predecessor for permitting harsh interrogation tactics with suspected terrorists, but once in office somehow concluded that a better, more moral approach would just be to use drones to assassinate such suspects without getting any information from them.

He presented himself as a shrewd student of Washington politics, but once in office displayed a counterproductive standoffishness to many Democratic lawmakers eager to embrace him, never developing the broad range of personal relationships that often mark a successful presidency.

He ran as a unifying force who would bring in a new era of civility and racial healing to Washington, but once in office embraced ugly, Chicago-style political hardball that saw nothing wrong with his supporters? loathsome practice of depicting opposition to his policies as being driven by racism.

He constantly offered praise for the wisdom and insights of the American public, but reacted to the broad discontent over Obamacare, high unemployment and vast deficits by saying it was a failure of his administration to properly explain its glorious record to a confused populace ? not a predictable reaction to his struggles and ineffectiveness.

And in December 2011 ? at a time in which one-quarter of American adults who wanted full-time work couldn?t find it, after a year in which the federal deficit was a staggering $1.3 trillion ? here was what Barack Obama had to say for himself in a CBS interview: ?I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president, with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln.?

Unbelievable. If self-reverence were a crime, our current president would be facing a life sentence. For the good of America, let?s pray we have someone else in charge of the federal government come Jan. 20, 2013.

Presidential busts: The worst of all: Barack Obama (2009-?) | UTSanDiego.com


----------



## IronAddict (Jul 24, 2012)

Swiper said:


> *Presidential busts: The worst of all: Barack Obama (2009-?)*
> 
> He took office at a time when the U.S. economy was on its worst slide in 75 years, but pushed policies using borrowed money that were more meant to preserve government jobs than broadly help the private sector where the great majority of Americans work, ensuring the jobs crisis continued.



This is true.

So I'm stuck with the worse possible choice of all. Putting back into the white house the party that got us all into this mess in the 1st place.

Ensuring the jobs crises, and a whole hell of a lot more continues.

Wake me when December arrives, I'd rather speak to santa clause cause atleast he'll give me straight answers to all this malarky!


----------



## LAM (Jul 24, 2012)

Swiper said:


> *Presidential busts: The worst of all: Barack Obama (2009-?)*
> 
> He took office at a time when the U.S. economy was on its worst slide in 75 years, but pushed policies using borrowed money that were more meant to preserve government jobs than broadly help the private sector where the great majority of Americans work, ensuring the jobs crisis continued.
> 
> He railed against the heavy spending and big deficits of his predecessor, but blithely backed budgets that had triple the deficits ever seen in American history.



there are several erroneous statements but I will just correct the first 2.

Spending under Obama and government growth is the lowest since Eisenhower in the 50's...

The majority of the increase in the deficit is a direct result of the recession, not from actual spending.  in Oct of 2009 the annual budget deficit was 1.2T, before Obama even set foot in the White House.

Federal Government: Current Expenditures (FGEXPND) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Federal Government Current Receipts (FGRECPT) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act Updated for the Recent Supreme Court Decision
CBO | Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act Updated for the Recent Supreme Court Decision

and as to why unemployment has not decreased, the answer is rather simple.  the pre-recession levels of spending were not sustainable as they were funded with debt and not real income growth.  the entire increase in real GDP growth in the 2000's came from equity extracting from homes and used for consumption.  3T in home equity was pulled out between 2000-2005.

Gauging the Impact of the Great Recession
FRBSF Economic Letter: Gauging the Impact of the Great Recession (2011-21, 7/11/2011)

and the systemic causes of the economic crisis and when it started which was the 80's per the economists at the IMF
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2010/12/pdf/kumhof.pdf

under Reagan the US economy started following economic principles of Milton Friedman he was an adviser to the administration.  the monetary base (money supply) was routinely double every decade.  this was the principle cause of wage stagnation and the erosion of purchasing power along with the fall in the union participation rate.  debt was used to grow the US financial sector at the expense of the working class and real income growth and future national income which is reduced with high deficits.

St. Louis Adjusted Monetary Base (BASE) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

and more information

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf

* those that stated extreme inequality didn't matter...well let's just say you couldn't have been anymore incorrect


----------



## irish_2003 (Jul 24, 2012)

this is what happens when you give Toby rights...Kunta Kinte would never ruin america like BO is


----------



## LAM (Jul 24, 2012)

irish_2003 said:


> this is what happens when you give Toby rights...Kunta Kinte would never ruin america like BO is



ah yea...it's called 30 years of neo-liberal economic policies that started under Reagan you might actually want to read one of the IMF reports.  it's all there in black & white


----------



## Zaphod (Jul 24, 2012)

Being insulted by Donald Trump is a lot like the skinniest kid in the gym telling you you're lifting wrong.


----------



## LAM (Jul 24, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Treasury Department on Wednesday reported that $164.4 billion was added to the federal budget deficit in November -- bringing the total deficit for the first two months of the fiscal year to $401.6 billion.
> By comparison, the budget deficit for all of fiscal year *2008 was $455 billion*, according to the Treasury. No where near 1.4 trillion




Historical Tables
Table 1.1?SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (?): 1789?2017
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls

* what is the number in Column D at row 116?  it's -1,412,688

2009	2,104,989	3,517,677	-1,412,688


----------



## irish_2003 (Jul 25, 2012)

LAM said:


> not really.  think about the people in administration, supply, etc. they are not combat troops



there's a difference between combat arms and combat troops...the problem though is it takes something like 7-10  (or more i'm not sure) support personnel for every combat arms individual there is to function properly and many of those support personnel are in the field with the combat arms units the entire time...


----------



## NVRBDR (Jul 25, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> Being insulted by Donald Trump is a lot like the skinniest kid in the gym telling you you're lifting wrong.



Trump isn't popular by most opinions, I get that. Comparing Trump to Obama is at least fair.
 Obama has never even ran any sort of business, other than our country(miserable failure there).

Trump has ran several and has a BK history, the difference is trump has negotiated and paid down his debt, our current president is in denial, he doesn't get it, the USA IS IN BK! But he, the destroyer, is still spending like the well is full. 

The last time I was in New York, Trump tower was still there, and his net worth is estimated at 2.9 billion, over 200 times that of Obamas meager 11.8 million, but, Obama has a Nobel peace prize! And he deserved that, right? lol


----------



## BFHammer (Jul 25, 2012)

LAM said:


> fucking pathetic...the increase in the deficit has been debunked time and time again as there was a 1.2T budget deficit in 10-01-2009.
> 
> never liked Trump always thought he was a douche-bag, he flips commercial property or gets paid to stick his cheesy name on the side of a building...wow...what would the US do with out you Donald.
> 
> the capitalists want Mittens in there so he can do the standard GOP supply-side tax cuts that haven't worked in US history and that will be the end of the working class in the US.



The thing is your have to actually read US history.   Tax cuts have worked every single time they have been used, booming economy.  Conversely every time a major tax increase has occurred major recessions/depression follow.  

Historic Tax Cuts and Economic Growth | Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

*The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates*

     By Daniel Mitchell, Ph.D.
_August 13, 2003_ 


Print 
 *Share*



Facebook 
Twitter 
Email 
 More 
 
     There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax  rates are reduced, the economy's growth rate improves and living  standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side  effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and  "rich" taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This  means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden - a  consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower  tax rates.
     Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub  par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when  politicians attempt to "soak the rich," the rest of us take a bath.  Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions  can prove useful lessons.
     1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.
*The tax cuts of the 1920s*

     Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping  from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal  income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite  the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164  million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.
     According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:
     The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently  excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the  taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it  in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the  realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of  taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax  burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither  revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.


President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and  President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates  to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering  the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate  reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down  to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in  1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent  after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:
     Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand,  and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is  increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our  national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive  tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just  as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits? In short, it is  a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues  are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run  is to cut the rates now.
*The Reagan tax cuts*

     Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed  millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their  inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax  increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest,  President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s.  What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the  1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what  happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an  unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed  dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent  after adjusting for inflation).
     According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:
     At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being  taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather  than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount  of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high  production.
     2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.
*The tax cuts of the 1920s*

     The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as  tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich  (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in  1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.
*The Kennedy tax cuts*

     Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden  borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections  from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between  1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000  rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income  tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.
*The Reagan tax cuts*

     The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners  jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent  in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb  even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in  1988.
*Harmful Spending & Complexity*

     Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical  issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes  are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates  are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject  to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that  problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with  needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive  sector of the economy.
     This WebMemo is excerpted from the author's, Daniel J. Mitchell's, Backgrounder, The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates, published July 19, 1996. The original publication, found here, contains footnotes and numerous charts.

The stupidest thing the US ever did was elect the Kenyan skid-mark to pretend to be president.  His communist goals are to destroy the US to be remade into the new soviet style state.


----------



## LAM (Jul 25, 2012)

I spend thousands of hours a year reading economic papers and there is no evidence that blanket tax cuts result in SUSTAINABLE GROWTH.  especially when those tax cuts heavily favor those at the top, all it does is increase inequality in wealth when then leads to rent seeking.  this is the trend that all of the data shows going back to the mid 1800's.

LOL @ Heritage Foundation....*going on 40 years now and they have not produced one single economic paper that is heavily cited*.  nothing but ideologues at that place, that pick and choose data that suits their agenda.

tax cuts for top earners do not result in productive investments for the economy, such as those used for education, infrastructure, etc. that increase future national income of the working class.  there is zero empirical evidence that supports the rationale that "blanket tax cuts" result in long term gains in productivity or even increases in real income growth.  you also have to factor in the type of growth and the jobs that were added during those years compared to the low wage service sector and consumption based economy that the US has now and since the 80's.  before the late 70's and 80's the US had record national savings, it's highest union participation rate ever and was still manufacturing based.

if you even bothered to read the IMF reports you would have found that out, the IMF is not some liberal think-tank either, they are loan sharks to governments...they are not the good guys at all

then there is also the problem of the constantly increasing costs of goods and services and the reduction of taxes, they don't really go to well together.  the past 30 years the working class has seen income grow about 40% all of which was negated due to the constantly increasing monetary base which increases inflation which effects those that earn the least the most.   top earners in the US have seen incomes increase 300-400% since the 80's and they are obviously the least effected by inflation and economic downturns.  then there is also the fact that as taxes on capital and corporate income has been reduced the mean unemployment rate has increased.

the US is a low tax country, taxes are not the problem they are at a 60 year low.  if you look at the OECD data you will find that the country's with the lowest taxes have very high income inequality and sluggish economy's (low real GDP growth).  the only low tax country that does not suffer from that is Switzerland because they also have low income and wealth inequality along with a government that does not allow the markets to prey upon it's working class citizens as in seen in the rent seeking activities of capitalist in the US.

the economy of 2012 is not like the economy of 1980 which is not like the economy of 1920...not comparing apples to apples, you have to look at the details, not just simply tax rates.


----------



## IronAddict (Jul 25, 2012)

Yeah, lol that's why we are where we are now.


----------



## Swiper (Jul 25, 2012)

LAM said:


> I spend thousands of hours a year reading economic papers and there is no evidence that blanket tax cuts result in SUSTAINABLE GROWTH.  especially when those tax cuts heavily favor those at the top, all it does is increase inequality in wealth when then leads to rent seeking.  this is the trend that all of the data shows going back to the mid 1800's.
> 
> LOL @ Heritage Foundation....*going on 40 years now and they have not produced one single economic paper that is heavily cited*.  nothing but ideologues at that place, that pick and choose data that suits their agenda.
> 
> ...



Would you agree that the govt owns your personal income and it decides how much money you get to keep? 

Or do you believe that your pay check is your personal property and the govt has no right to take any of it?


----------



## vicious 13 (Jul 25, 2012)

How do u know


----------



## vicious 13 (Jul 25, 2012)

I miss Clinton


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Jul 25, 2012)

How Obama tax policies and budget deficit stack against Reagan's


----------



## Zaphod (Jul 25, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> Trump isn't popular by most opinions, I get that. Comparing Trump to Obama is at least fair.
> Obama has never even ran any sort of business, other than our country(miserable failure there).
> 
> Trump has ran several and has a BK history, the difference is trump has negotiated and paid down his debt, our current president is in denial, he doesn't get it, the USA IS IN BK! But he, the destroyer, is still spending like the well is full.
> ...



The national budget isn't a president-only thing.  So there's blame o'plenty to go around.  And I'm really not too sure what Obama's peace prize has anything to do with the national budget.


----------



## Zaphod (Jul 25, 2012)

Swiper said:


> Would you agree that the govt owns your personal income and it decides how much money you get to keep?
> 
> Or do you believe that your pay check is your personal property and the govt has no right to take any of it?



Without the government and the inevitable taxes where do you think the infrastructure comes from when you want to run down to the 7-11 to get your Big Gulp?  It sure wasn't because private enterprise thought it would be a nifty thing to build.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jul 25, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> The national budget isn't a president-only thing.  So there's blame o'plenty to go around.  And I'm really not too sure what Obama's peace prize has anything to do with the national budget.  [/QUOT
> 
> Yes, the wave of blame flows high, he is at the top of the wave.
> 
> it's always about the Nobel peace prize, you know that


----------



## LAM (Jul 25, 2012)

Swiper said:


> Would you agree that the govt owns your personal income and it decides how much money you get to keep?
> 
> Or do you believe that your pay check is your personal property and the govt has no right to take any of it?



taxes are what give a fiat currency value where it naturally has no intrinsic value, the no tax country that uses a fiat currency has never existed in reality in world history.   and redistribution is a BASIC FUNCTION of every single society in world history dating back to the Egyptians, it is one of the basic functions of all economic systems.

i am neither an ideologue or an extremists, there is always a grey area.  only extremists and children deal in absolutes.


----------



## LAM (Jul 25, 2012)

GearsMcGilf said:


> How Obama tax policies and budget deficit stack against Reagan's



you really should read the reports from the IMF that I posted.  they dispell the myth of the good that Reagan's economic policy's did for the long term.  30 years of extreme income and wealth inequality is what lead up the the economic crisis.  rent seeking always occurs in periods of extreme income/wealth inequality because excess wealth not only promotes selfish behavior it is not value neutral.

and David Stockman Reagan's budget chief has trashed the economic policy's of Reagan...as has Joseph Stiglitz


----------



## Zaphod (Jul 25, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> Zaphod said:
> 
> 
> > The national budget isn't a president-only thing.  So there's blame o'plenty to go around.  And I'm really not too sure what Obama's peace prize has anything to do with the national budget.  [/QUOT
> ...


----------



## NVRBDR (Jul 25, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> Without the government and the inevitable taxes where do you think the infrastructure comes from when you want to run down to the 7-11 to get your Big Gulp?  It sure wasn't because private enterprise thought it would be a nifty thing to build.



 with cars getting more fuel efficient, fuel tax will rise since it is the primary tax for roads and bridges.

There have been talks of VMT, a tax based on miles driven... lol, it's like Rome all over again.


----------



## LAM (Jul 25, 2012)

gas tax in the US is the lowest in the OECD, it's why gas is so cheap in the US compared to the EU.  cheap gas promotes excess consumption which translates to higher profits for big oil.  cheap gas also allows urban sprawl, higher gas prices would keep workers closer to the metro areas where the majority of the jobs are.  housing and construction, etc. would be even further reduced if the US had high gas taxes like other OECD country's.

inflation since the 80's has reduced much of the value of monies collected from gas taxes for the highway fund.  it's less than 40B a year which is peanuts compared to the several trillion that is needed to repair US roadways and bridges.  the gas tax is not indexed for inflation.

the US is a low tax country but we have high inflation.  on average real inflation is double what the CPI states.


----------



## NoviceAAS (Jul 28, 2012)

Love how Trump claims to be a "self made man starting from nothing "  yet his graduation present was 1 million dollars.


----------



## NoviceAAS (Jul 28, 2012)

Haha isnt it amazing that there are still people who believe in "trickle down economics".  All they need do is look at the past ten years, taxes are lower now on the high earners than ever before, if that creates growth whats the dilly- yo ?

   Im with you in saying the gap between upper and middle class is greater evidence of a larger problem


----------



## LAM (Jul 28, 2012)

when they mention either "free markets" or supply-side economics it's akin to them saying "hey I don't really understand econ in reality but that stuff sounds good to my brain."


----------



## troubador (Jul 28, 2012)

LAM said:


> when they mention either "free markets" or supply-side economics it's akin to them saying "hey I don't really understand econ in reality but that stuff sounds good to my brain."



Yeah, you mention those a lot.

Just look at what happened to India after they adopted free market principles - they have the fastest growing economy in the world. 


btw, your shitty argument is commonly called 'poisoning the well'.


----------

