MI6 and CIA were told before invasion that Iraq had no active WMD

[LAM]

LAM is very aggressive in his views. He has mastered Google and the ability to cherry pick what he needs to make it sound like he is right on everything he wants to.

typical response from the right. when proven wrong attack the information, so incredibly lame. that's the best you can come up. your honestly going to debate what the best economists on the planet stated. do you realize just how stupid you make yourself out to be by doing so?

so then I shouldn't use Goggle. then WTF was the point of the Information Age? your advice would be for me to go the the library and use the dewey decimal system and spend countless hours reading texts! LMAO...

what I get tired of is stupid, stupid, extremely ignorant people. that are obviously too lazy to learn anything new. one of the many reasons why the US is falling down the ranks in the OECD in terms of education. nobody wants to learn anything hard, everybody wants everything to be easy. if it takes any real effort, nobody wants any part of it.

 

[GearsMcGilf]

Bush is the greatest hero of this century. If not for him, Saddam would still be developing WMD and working with Osama to launch a chemical/biological attack on the US, as he was before we stopped him. Look at what Saddam did to us on 9/11! Under Bush, the economy was booming and we were close to a balanced budget. Iraq and Afghanistan are now thriving, western style democracies. This could never have happened under the musim we have in office now!

 

[Arnold]

Bush is the greatest hero of this century. If not for him, Saddam would still be developing WMD and working with Osama to launch a chemical/biological attack on the US, as he was before we stopped him. Look at what Saddam did to us on 9/11! Under Bush, the economy was booming and we were close to a balanced budget. Iraq and Afghanistan are now thriving, western style democracies. This could never have happened under the musim we have in office now!

What planet do u live on?

 

[LAM]

CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit

The new Congressional Budget Office budget projections released today show that the nation faces a fourth consecutive year of substantial budget deficits. Some seek to portray ?runaway domestic spending? or growth in the costs of entitlement programs as the primary cause of the shift in recent years from sizeable surpluses to large deficits. Such a characterization is incorrect. In 2005, the cost of tax cuts enacted over the past four years will be over three times the cost of all domestic program increases enacted over this period.

The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for nearly half ? 48 percent ? of this $539 billion in increased costs. [1] Increases in program spending make up the other 52 percent and have been primarily concentrated in defense, homeland security, and international affairs.

The Administration has repeatedly defended its tax cuts as a needed stimulus during the recent economic downturn. But the downturn is behind us, and the cost of the tax cuts is scheduled to increase in the years ahead. Indeed, some of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 that benefit only high-income households have not even started to take effect yet. The repeal of the ?personal exemption phase-out? for high-income taxpayers, as well as repeal of the limitation on itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers, do not start to phase in until 2006 and do not take full effect until 2010. Estate tax repeal also does not take effect until 2010.

A growing number of studies from highly respected institutions and economists have concluded that the negative effect on long-term growth of the increased deficits that the tax cuts are generating is likely to cancel out ? and quite possibly to outweigh ? any positive effects on long-term growth from reductions in marginal tax rates and other tax incentives in the 2001 and 2003 tax-cut packages. Stated simply, the tax cuts are more likely to reduce long-term growth than to increase it.[2]

Another way to evaluate the recent trends that have caused the shift from sizeable surpluses to large deficits is to look at how spending and revenues each have changed as a share of the economy over the 2000-2005 period. Such an analysis looks at all changes in revenues and spending, not just those that resulted from legislation. It shows that while there has been growth in spending as a share of the economy, the lion?s share of the swing from surpluses to deficits stems from a major drop in revenues.

In 2000, federal revenues equaled 20.9 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, the basic measure of the size of the economy. CBO projects that in 2005, revenues will amount to just 16.8 percent of GDP. This decline in revenues, equal to 4.0 percent of GDP, reflects the effects of the tax cuts, as well as an erosion in revenues caused by the bursting of the stock market bubble and a less robust economy overall. As Table 1 shows, the increase in program spending is less than two-thirds the decline in revenues.

Furthermore, under the new CBO projections, total federal spending will remain lower in 2005, as a share of the economy, than in any year from 1975-1996. As this indicates, federal spending is not at an unusually high level, even with the large increases in spending for Iraq and anti-terrorism efforts. The deficits that the nation now faces reflect not an unusually high level of spending, but rather an unusually low level of revenue. Indeed, CBO projects that federal revenues will be lower as a share of the economy in 2005 than in all years of the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s.


CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[LAM]

"Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts ? in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance ? vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. More specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one."

- David Stockman - Ronald's Reagan's Budget Chief

Op-Ed Contributor
Four Deformations of the Apocalypse
By DAVID STOCKMAN
Published: July 31, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[maniclion]

What planet do u live on?

Little known moon of Pluto called Satire me thinks....

 

[Swiper]

lam,
you completely avoid history once again. it shows us time and time again that when all rates are lowered it brings in more revenue to the treasury.

since you think high tax taxes will save the US, what should the tax rates be and at what income levels? also what' should the corporate & investment rate be? of course I know you don't have the balls to post numbers you think the rates should be, so I'm not holding my breath...

 

[Swiper]

Why do u think someone is a subscriber to the Democratic Party just because they disagree with you?

I don't, but its clear lam is an Obama nut sucker. Obama can do no wrong in his mind. not to mention he voted for him twice. lol.

 

[LAM]

I don't, but its clear lam is an Obama nut sucker. Obama can do no wrong in his mind. not to mention he voted for him twice. lol.

actually it's clear that my turds have a more thorough understand economics then you do.

here is a brief from:

International Banking Conference
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and CEPR15?16 November 2012

so lets see what is reported in the brief:

Lesson 1: Past private credit growth does contain valuable predictive information about
likelyhood of crisis

Lesson 2: External imbalances/public debts are a disctraction

* this would be the deficit
Federal Debt: Total Public Debt (GFDEBTN) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Lesson 3: After a credit boom, expect a more painful recession, normal or financial crisis

* ah the effects of financial deregulation under the Reagan admin
Household Sector: Liabilities: Household Credit Market Debt Outstanding (CMDEBT) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Lesson 4: In a financial crisis with a large run-up in private sector credit, mark down
growth/inflation more
Federal Debt Held by Private Investors (FDHBPIN) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Lesson 5: In a financial crisis with a large public debt, and large run-up in private sector
private sector credit, mark down growth/inflation even more

* the grey area is the recession, see the deep and loss of GDP.
Gross Domestic Product, 1 Decimal (GDP) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

The Great Leveraging (Taylor NBER & CEPR November 2012)

* now STFU you don't know jack shit about finance or economics and obliviously I know exactly what I'm talking about...

 

[Swiper]

actually it's clear that my turds have a more thorough understand economics then you do.
.

lam,
you completely avoid history once again. it shows us time and time again that when all rates are lowered it brings in more revenue to the treasury.

since you think high tax taxes will save the US, what should the tax rates be and at what income levels? also what' should the corporate & investment rate be? of course I know you don't have the balls to post numbers you think the rates should be, so I'm not holding my breath...

LMAO!! i knew you had no balls and wouldn't answer my questions. you're a phony and a coward.

 

[LAM]

lam,
you completely avoid history once again. it shows us time and time again that when all rates are lowered it brings in more revenue to the treasury.

since you think high tax taxes will save the US, what should the tax rates be and at what income levels? also what' should the corporate & investment rate be? of course I know you don't have the balls to post numbers you think the rates should be, so I'm not holding my breath...

well for that I would go to the experts on this specific subject which are Saez and Piketty . the 2 most heavily cited economists in the world on this topic of taxes and inequality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/b...rule-is-just-a-start.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

* because you are a blind ideologue you fail to see that previously in history high tax rates on the top earners were keeping them from running away with the majority of the national income, which obviously leads to the concentration of political power. the removal of these tax barriers is exactly why we have seen the concentration of political power in the US in the hands of the few and while this has not occurred in any other country in the OECD that left these barriers in place post WWII.

if you go to page 1 of the brief "The Great Leveraging" it states that there were no economic crisis during the period of 1940-1970.

Exception: 1940 to1970 period unusually quiescent. Why?

well economists know why. high tax rates for the top earners, and there was real income growth across all 5 income quintiles with the bottom and middle seeing wage growth faster than the top. now we have stagnant wages for the middle to the bottom with the top "lending" their excess wealth to them to fuel consumption.

so please don't tell me that I completely avoided history as it is you that don't know it....

 

[troubador]

lam,
you completely avoid history once again. it shows us time and time again that when all rates are lowered it brings in more revenue to the treasury.

That's why the Keynesian ideologues assassinated Kennedy after he proposed reducing the tax rates from 91% to 65%. Afterwords LBJ did and besides increasing revenue, unemployment started dropping. The Keynesian elitists need to keep the poor dependent for the NWO uprising.

 

[IronAddict]

If Lam is a D nut sucker, then what does that make everyone of you guys that tries to argue the R's counter point, even if there isn't one.

Yep, bush and cheney are the greatest, they're regular R magicians, look how they've made themselves disappear.

They're the true cowards, not the guy that points them out.

 

[ctr10]

When will Bush get what he deserves?

He is at this moment, retired on his ranch in Texas

 

[troubador]

Afterwords LBJ did and besides increasing revenue...

Damn spellchecker.

 

[troubador]

He is at this moment, retired on his ranch in Texas

I thought he went black face, got reelected and kept doing the same ol'shit. He even pretended to run against himself last year before his 4th term.

 

[Intense]

So he lied about the shoot down order? Im just glad he ordered to have the bitch shot down. Idgaf who ordered it lol

 

[LAM]

That's why the Keynesian ideologues assassinated Kennedy after he proposed reducing the tax rates from 91% to 65%.

really? well first the POTUS can not change tax rates, all taxing and spending legislation is originated in the House. funny how this theory originally from Swiper and has never been heard of before in world history by any scholar in any country. probably because it's the most ridiculous "thought" ever and substantiated by zero evidence of any kind.

and maybe you can explain why GHWB was photographed in Dallas the day JFK was shot. when he claimed not to be in the CIA before being appointed to the Directors Chair in 1976 and when he was put in charge to lead the "investigation" into the JFK assassination which obviously went no were.

[video]http://tomflocco.com/Docs/63/BushJfkBookDepo2.jpg[/video]

there are also documents linking the Zapata Corporation with the CIA and the Bay of Pigs. the Zapata Corp was funded by Bush's Nazi grandfather Prescott Bush and some other oil magnates.

you just can't face that facts that it was the neo-cons that destroyed the US.

 

[LAM]

That's why the Keynesian ideologues assassinated Kennedy after he proposed reducing the tax rates from 91% to 65%. Afterwords LBJ did and besides increasing revenue, unemployment started dropping. The Keynesian elitists need to keep the poor dependent for the NWO uprising.

since the Great Depression the right was against EVERY SINGLE POLICY that made the middle class in the US. they were against labor unions, they were against the Federal minimum wage and against progressive tax policy. so who exactly has been trying to keep people poor? the right...

 

[troubador]

really? well first the POTUS can not change tax rates, all taxing and spending legislation is originated in the House.

Revenue Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[troubador]

and maybe you can explain why GHWB was photographed in Dallas the day JFK was shot. when he claimed not to be in the CIA before being appointed to the Directors Chair in 1976 and when he was put in charge to lead the "investigation" into the JFK assassination which obviously went no were.

No kidding, he was in charge of it. The problem is the Illuminati's greatest skill is letting you see what they want you to see. Having GHWB there makes perfect sense. Why do you think someone with such a high profile was obviously involved? Think they would risk that? Put on your critical thinking cap. GHWB is a Keynesian mole. What happened right after "Read my lips, no new taxes"? Yup, he "conceded" on taxes to his buddies. It was a setup, GHWB was a pawn made to look like a counterweight. Maybe if you didn't get your info from government controlled search engines you'd know that.

since the Great Depression the right was against EVERY SINGLE POLICY that made the middle class in the US. they were against labor unions, they were against the Federal minimum wage and against progressive tax policy. so who exactly has been trying to keep people poor? the right...

Yeah, selling those "high top tax brackets" to the public has clearly worked. 1935, the top tax bracket had one person in it...JDR. Yeah, he had no control over that, it wasn't part of his plan at all...you keep believing that.

 

[Swiper]

well for that I would go to the experts on this specific subject which are Saez and Piketty . the 2 most heavily cited economists in the world on this topic of taxes and inequality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/b...rule-is-just-a-start.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

* because you are a blind ideologue you fail to see that previously in history high tax rates on the top earners were keeping them from running away with the majority of the national income, which obviously leads to the concentration of political power. the removal of these tax barriers is exactly why we have seen the concentration of political power in the US in the hands of the few and while this has not occurred in any other country in the OECD that left these barriers in place post WWII.

if you go to page 1 of the brief "The Great Leveraging" it states that there were no economic crisis during the period of 1940-1970.

Exception: 1940 to1970 period unusually quiescent. Why?

well economists know why. high tax rates for the top earners, and there was real income growth across all 5 income quintiles with the bottom and middle seeing wage growth faster than the top. now we have stagnant wages for the middle to the bottom with the top "lending" their excess wealth to them to fuel consumption.

so please don't tell me that I completely avoided history as it is you that don't know it....

you're avoiding history because no one paid those high rates (1940-1970) they would use every loop hole and tax write off they can. so to say the high tax rates didn't slow growth is a phony argument.

 

[LAM]

you're avoiding history because no one paid those high rates (1940-1970) they would use every loop hole and tax write off they can. so to say the high tax rates didn't slow growth is a phony argument.

once again you are wrong. there were very few tax loopholes back then and the majority of high earners got paid in labor wages not in stock shares or other forms of unearned income. so yes they did pay those top rates.

the problem with tax loopholes has only increased in the past decades in the US since the mid 70's and 80's as the top rates have been lowered to historic lows and with the growth of large firms, MNE's and the financialization of the US economy.

stop talking about finance or econ because you don't know anything about either. your easter egging at this point