Occupy Wall Street Protests

Yep, but he cut them when it counted and it worked. And maybe when BO's economy creates 1,100,000 jobs in one month, BO will be able to raise taxes also. In the mean time, how is BO's economics working?

 

Huh? Care to back that opinion up with any facts?

 

Like which? I have already posted the 1,100,000 and the 103,000.

 

We are still paying for some of Reagan's ideas. Like deregulation, in the 80s it caused massive bank failures, yet we doubled-down on that idea. Trickle-down economics? Only the idiotic continue to believe in that bs.

 

I love this Right-wing talking point. It always tickles me to hear them say that the government doesn't create jobs while figting about which one of them created the most jobs. Newt says government doesn't create jobs but Rlm says Reagan created jobs. All the GOP hopefuls claim that they've created the most jobs in their respective states but then again, government doesn't create jobs. All I can agree with is that the GOP certainly doesn't create jobs nor do they allow anyone else to create them either. Go figure.

 

Government certainly doesn't create jobs; Obama's lack of leadership on the jobs front is proof of that.

 

A fluff response... lies won't cut it.

 

It appears that Lech Walesa plans to visit New York in support of the OWS movement.
That could be interesting.

 

It's probably still too early to be certain whether or not George Soros is behind the Flea Party, but "where there's smoke, there's fire":

http://news.yahoo.com/whos-behind-wall-st-protests-110834998.html

 

And I posted this link 10/6 http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9269-big-soros-money-linked-to-occupy-wall-street

 

Yeah, Soros's name keeps popping up all over this thing.

 

My guess is that this one is really closer to the truth;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...111013?feedType=RSS&virtualBrandChannel=10104

 

Well here's something from someone who served in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations but it doesn't offer rim's cents much support.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6c8f2b92-e515-11e0-9aa8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1aj8Ltzc5

 

Here is an interesting article about the 53 percenters and the remaining 47 percent:

http://news.yahoo.com/numbers-47-percent-pay-no-income-tax-look-170500327.html

 

Tatjerk, that opinion does not even mention jobs nor reference the Reagan years save that the author once had a job. I don't think it proves much of anything.

 

I thought the whole Republican program for creating jobs was the improved economy which in their view must inevitably follow tax cuts. I mean this seems to be the key leg of the Republican "plan" followed by cutting wages and benefits and reducing or eliminating regulation on industry and finance. So yes, I think it does apply to jobs.

"Tatjerk" I kinda like that. Mind if I use it?

 

How interesting. I guess the Financial Time thinks about as much of your article as I did. My access is now blocked.

 

Inconvenient truths about the Reagan mythology:

For seven of Reagan’s eight years in office, the top tax rate was higher than the current 35 percent. In six of those years, it was 50 percent or more. And every year that Regan was in office, the bottom tax bracket was higher than the current ten percent.
For a family of four, the “average income tax rate under Reagan in 1983 was 11.06 percent. Under Clinton in 1992, it was 9.18 percent. And under Obama in 2010, it was 4.68 percent.” During Reagan’s time, income tax revenue ranged from 7.8 to 9.4 percent of GDP. Last year, it was 6.2 percent and is not projected to climb back to 9 percent until 2016. In fact, in 2009, Americans paid their lowest taxes in 60 years.

 

And they want it lower... and lower... and lower... turning the U.S. into a 2nd-rate country... ...or third-rate, or fourth..