patrick.net

. FortWayne says

bob2356 says

You never did explain how reagan's tax reforms increasing tax revenue by 54 billion was an overall lowering of taxes. Is that like:

“War is peace. (George Orwell 1984)

Because at that time there were so many loopholes in the tax system that most very high earners never paid any of it. Reagans system reduced overall taxes, while increasing them by removing loopholes. It worked out to be a better system.

What percentage constitutes "most" high earners that never paid any income taxes? Please stop overwhelming us with this overflowing cascade of facts proving your case. The massive volume of research you have been presenting is simply awesome. AKA zero facts, it's true because I believe it should be true.

Did you really say reagan reduced taxes while increasing them? Orwell would be so proud of you. Assuming you know who Orwell is.

FortWayne says

3. Deregulated industries and eroded environmental standards (there is something called 'EXTERNALITIES' which require regulation)

Carter deregulated. You don't know what you are talking about, apparently your baseline condition.

FortWayne says

For a man who claims to have worked on it, you sure seem to not know what actually happened. I highly doubt you did something more than passed out flyers on the street for $4/hour if you are that unaware.

Nope wrong. I know exactly what happened which is why I know you are full of shit. Reaganomics didn't "save" anything and the soviet union was well on it's way to failing when Reagan took office.

I still think you were wearing diapers when reagan was elected.

bob2356 says

Carter deregulated. You don't know what you are talking about, apparently your baseline condition.

Let uomo_senza_nome_0 know, that's his liberal condition.

FortWayne says

And what does this have to do with you dodging a question where you are bitching about them having 2 trillion?

FWayne - I am not dodging any question. A bank that has assets over 2 trillion, with over 3000 subsidiaries, and one that was bailed out during 2008 crisis -- could potentially be at risk of failing again. This risk is non-zero, as the bank itself prepares a living will to the Federal Reserve. You asked why is this the tax payer's problem -- and I gave a clear explanation. The financial institutions have been bailed out before and there was mishandling during these bailouts. Are you not concerned about the moral hazard perpetuated by these bailouts? Or do you want me to explain what moral hazard means? LOL.

And that has to do what with Republicans vs. Democrats? Because your whole whining above only said something about "Republicans are evil, look at how much some banks have.". If that's not your point, you need to make the worlds more clear, whats in your head is not whats in the post.