georgerussia 0 #76 January 26, 2008 Quote I watched chunks of last night's Dem's debate (or was I just blowing chunks after the debate) and I was not impressed with Ms Clinton's and Mr Obama's tactics. Me neither. Especially Hillary - a lot of times she opens her mouth something really stupid comes out; and she's not even a President yet. It looks now more and more like the famous Stainless Steel Rat for President: - Vote for me and end corruption in high places. Vote for me and I’ll have the Ultimados working as swimming instructors on a shark farm. Vote for me and see what honest government can really be like. I promise an ox in every pot, a gallon of wine in the cupboard, an abolition of all taxes, six weeks annual holiday with pay, a thirty-hour work week, retirement with full pay at the age of fifty for every registered member of the Nobles and Peasants and Workers Party - volunteers will pass among you handing out membership forms - free bull fights every Sunday, off-track betting by licensed bookmakers, plus a few other things that I will think of soon... My last words were drowned out by enthusiastic cheering that had no need of subsonics. If the voting were held at this moment - and the machines not rigged - I would have received every vote. I sat down, still waving, then sipped at my restorative glass. - Didn’t you promise a few things you can’t deliver? - Angelina asked. I nodded. - No one believes election promises, particularly the politicians who make them. Quote We do know that Ms Clinton, Mr Obama and John Edwards are better than the current moron occupying the job. I was thinking like that before the debates begin. Now, after watching all that circus, I'm not sure anymore.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #77 January 26, 2008 QuoteOK, we'll take since Reagan and do a partisan accumulation. Partisan - definitely. Gotta love people who want to tax down businesses and the rich, then complain that business aren't paying enough to workers or moving overseas, then complain that the economy is down. Well, duh... The whole 'goose and golden egg" thing is beyond their comprehension, evidently. In 1924, Mellon noted: "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." Detailed Internal Revenue Service data show that the across-the-board rate cuts of the early 1920s-including large cuts at the top end-resulted in greater tax payments and a larger tax share paid by those with high incomes. Figure 1 focuses on those earning more than $100,000. As the marginal tax rate on those high-income earners was cut sharply from 60 percent or more (to a maximum of 73 percent) to just 25 percent, taxes paid by that group soared from roughly $300 billion to $700 billion per year. The share of overall income taxes paid by the group rose from about one-third in the early 1920s to almost two-thirds by the late 1920s. (Note that inflation was virtually zero between 1922 and 1930, thus the tax amounts shown for that period are essentially real changes). The tax cuts allowed the U.S. economy to grow rapidly during the mid- and late-1920s. Between 1922 and 1929, real gross national product grew at an annual average rate of 4.7 percent and the unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 3.2 percent. The Mellon tax cuts restored incentives to work, save, and invest, and discouraged the use of tax shelters. Information from the Cato Institute. The Dems insistence on taxing down the country shows yet again that those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. Want to see the deficit go away? Freeze spending for 2 years. Of course, that will never work because then the pols can't make their 'bread and circuses' promises in exchange for votes.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #78 January 26, 2008 QuoteFuck teh Jesus interjection, but other than that, I wonder why no one attacks Sweeden? HMMMmmmmmmmmmmm They've got the Swedish Bikini Team. Come on, man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #79 January 26, 2008 Quote BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA OMG BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHABWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA oh...my...breathe..... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA You might want to lubricate that keyboard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #80 January 26, 2008 Maybe you'll have noticed that the Bush tax cuts have NOT put us in surplus. They have left us in deeper debt than ever before. The "increased revenues" the GOP brays about are only up IF you ignore both inflation and population growth. The US government is the the biggest debtor organization in history, and the USA is the biggest debtor nation in history. In 1980, the USA was the biggest creditor nation. The change from creditor to debtor is overwhelmingly due to three presidents, named Reagan, Bush and Bush. Do you actually know how much the USA owes China? Japan? Taiwan? S. Korea? A mountain of debt is NOT a firm foundation on which to build a sound economy, as we are seeing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misternatural 0 #81 January 26, 2008 >.You might want to lubricate that keyboard. I'll bet you're pretty good at lubricating your keyboard. sorry, was that juvenile?Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires. D S #3.1415 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #82 January 26, 2008 Quote Maybe you'll have noticed that the Bush tax cuts have NOT put us in surplus. They have left us in deeper debt than ever before. The "increased revenues" the GOP brays about are only up IF you ignore both inflation and population growth.Quote Being in deeper debt isn't the fault of the tax cuts, which have brought in record tax revenue as tax cuts always do - the problem is that we can't get CONGRESS to quit spending money they don't have.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,184 #83 January 26, 2008 Quote Quote Maybe you'll have noticed that the Bush tax cuts have NOT put us in surplus. They have left us in deeper debt than ever before. The "increased revenues" the GOP brays about are only up IF you ignore both inflation and population growth. Quote Being in deeper debt isn't the fault of the tax cuts, which have brought in record tax revenue as tax cuts always do - the problem is that we can't get CONGRESS to quit spending money they don't have. Now correct those "record" revenues for inflation and population growth. Washington Post, October 17, 2006 "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that." Economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and in the Treasury Department have reached the same conclusion. An analysis of Treasury data prepared last month by the Congressional Research Service estimates that economic growth fueled by the cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of the total cost of the cuts, a broad package of rate reductions and tax credits that has returned an estimated $1.1 trillion to taxpayers since 2001. Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said neither the president nor anyone else in the administration is claiming that tax cuts alone produced the unexpected surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #84 January 26, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Maybe you'll have noticed that the Bush tax cuts have NOT put us in surplus. They have left us in deeper debt than ever before. The "increased revenues" the GOP brays about are only up IF you ignore both inflation and population growth. Quote Being in deeper debt isn't the fault of the tax cuts, which have brought in record tax revenue as tax cuts always do - the problem is that we can't get CONGRESS to quit spending money they don't have. Now correct those "record" revenues for inflation and population growth. If it's so important to you, YOU do it. Typical misdirect like you always do - take something good and try to make it look bad because the Republicans did it instead of the Democrats.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,184 #85 January 26, 2008 “It is very rare and very few economists believe that you can cut taxes and you will get the same amount of revenues.” – Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan Testimony before House Budget Committee September 8, 2004 “I don’t think that, as a general rule, that tax cuts pay for themselves.” –Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke Testimony before Joint Economic Committee April 27, 2006 “As a general matter, most tax cuts do not pay for themselves.” ; OMB Director Nominee Rob Portman Written Response to Questions Submitted Prior to Senate Budget Committee Nomination Hearing May 10, 2006 “[There is] no credible evidence that tax revenues ... rise in the face of lower tax rates.” “[An economist claiming tax cuts pay for themselves is like a] snake oil salesman who is trying to sell a miracle cure.” – Former Chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers N. Gregory Mankiw Introductory college economics textbook, “Principles of Economics,” 1998 “I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.”, 2006 testimony before Congress’s Joint Economic Committee, by Edward Lazear, chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Misternatural 0 #86 January 26, 2008 >If it's so important to you, YOU do it. Typical misdirect like you always do - take something good and try to make it look bad because the Republicans did it instead of the Democrats. Ah, there it is, the crux of the biscuit. The reason for 80% of the posts on here. Politics in this country is very tribal- we all want our tribe to win and be in total control even to the point of detriment to the whole. As I got older I began to see the benefit of having a balance of conservative and liberal policies in Washington -it makes the country function as a somewhat stable democracy just like the founders intended. Now, do you really want the govt to be composed of a singular mindset? probably not because thats a totalitarian regime - which history has shown is not viable. As a Democrat would I be willing to sacrifice the presidency to a Republican? Meh, I would be really disappointed but as long as there is democratic congress, it forces rational negotiations to take place.Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires. D S #3.1415 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #87 January 26, 2008 Every bill that goes through Congress has to have some sort of negotiation between the parties... so they're ALL complicit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #88 January 26, 2008 QuoteThe US has borrowed money to pay for things every year in the last 30 years. Republicans have merely borrowed more - especially over the last 6 years. You posted: QuoteOK, we'll take since Reagan and do a partisan accumulation. - Repub - Reagan, Bush, Bush = $6.8 trillion increase - Dem - Clinton = $1.5 trillion increase Using your figures, under Clinton, in 8 years, the debt increased 1.5 trillion, or 187.5 billion per year, on average. Under reagan, bush and bush, over 19 years the debt increased 6.8 trillion, or 357.9 billion per year. Now how does that impeach my assertion that under Clinton we always borrowed, and under Reagan/Bush we always borrowed more? It does not impeach it. You data supports it. I wrote that under clinton, we borroed, too. Under Republican presidents we borrowed more. Bad - to borrow. Worse - to borrow and borrow. QuoteSo our community lawyer wants us to believe, '6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of the other.' No, I am positing that we have -6 of 1 (Dem presidency), and -12 of the other (GOP Presidency). QuoteWhat I extrapolate from that is, especially when we consider the Repub congress for most of GW Bush's term, that the Dems in Congress slowed the spending of Reagan and GWH Bush. Exactly what I believe. And, that the Republican Congress slowed the Spending of the Clinton Presidency. (of course, it can be argued that CLinton slowed the spending of a republican congress and that Reagan/Bush slowed the spending of a Democratic Congress. After all, Presidents DO have veto power.) QuoteWhen we have a Repub WH and congress we see the result, 1/2T+ per year over 7 years = purely pathetic. No, shit. And look what happened when Clinton had a democratic Congress. It was going so badly that Republicans were voted in in Nov. 1994. QuoteBorrowing a little does not = borrowing a ton 1.3 trillion is not "a little." Microsoft has 10,700,000,000 shares. The value of Microsoft stock yesterday was 32.94. Some simple math shows microsoft's market capitalization at 352,458,000,000 - $352.46 billion. So, tell me how borrowing enough money to buy Microsoft every two years is borrowing "a little." It isn't. And you can spin it all you want but it was "borrowing" and it was borrowing "a lot." It simply was not borrowing enough to buy Microsoft every year, as has been the average under Republican presidents. Quoteespecially when you consider the little borrower inherited a huge habit of borrowing and virtually broke it even. I thought Clinton came in to change things. And virtually broke it even? $180 billion per year ain't exactly virtually breaking it even. You either have a surplus, break even or have a deficit. For the past 75 years, deficit has been the rule. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #89 January 26, 2008 Quote You might want to lubricate that keyboard Sorry...not my thing.... I will leave that one handed typing lubrication of their keyboards to the right wingers on here .. with their mastabatory fantasies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #90 January 26, 2008 QuoteEvery bill that goes through Congress has to have some sort of negotiation between the parties... so they're ALL complicit. YOU really did not pay attention to what your Republican Rubber Stamp Congress pulled until the were voted out of power in Nov 2006 did you....there was little to no negotiation... What King GeorgeII wanted King GeorgeII got. And the Democrats were left sitting on the sidelines as the rePUBICans got more and more corrupt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,184 #91 January 26, 2008 Well, chief, it takes a little time to make changes so why not look at the trends: www.futurepower.org/Deficits.gif Oh yes, deficits go UP under GOP administrations, and go down under DEMs. In fact, the biggest debt increases in the history of the Earth took place under GOP administrations.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #92 January 26, 2008 Quote I will leave that one handed typing lubrication of their keyboards to the right wingers on here .. with their mastabatory fantasies. Sorry baby, but when I see all those dots of yours . . . I . . . just . . . can't . . . resist . . . . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #93 January 26, 2008 Quote Being in deeper debt isn't the fault of the tax cuts, which have brought in record tax revenue as tax cuts always do - the problem is that we can't get CONGRESS to quit spending money they don't have. Can't blame Congress for this one. The spending increases of the Bush terms came from Bush himself. In the 6 years where the GOP controlled it, Bush vetoed nothing, while initiating two major wars and creating new departments. In the one year of a Democrat lead Congress, Bush vetoed their attempts to CUT spending by imposing a troop pullout in military spending bills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #94 January 26, 2008 Quote3. They'll be able to claim that the recession really has nothing to do with GOP policies; it's all the new president. We're in a recession?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,184 #95 January 27, 2008 QuoteQuote3. They'll be able to claim that the recession really has nothing to do with GOP policies; it's all the new president. We're in a recession? Bush seems to think his policies will lead to one unless he gives $300 (that he will borrow from overseas) to everyone. Well, not to me, since I already have $300.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #96 January 27, 2008 QuoteWell, chief, it takes a little time to make changes so why not look at the trends: http://www.futurepower.org/Deficits.gif Oh yes, deficits go UP under GOP administrations, and go down under DEMs. You know, I have stated over and over again in this thread that Republicans over spend MORE than dems. I pointed out that they borrow, on average, twice as much as dems. Thus, they are twice as BAD as dems when it comes to that. HOWEVER My poitn is that Dems borrow. "Deficits go down" is another way of saying "We aren't borrowing as much." And my point is that Dems run large deficits, Republicans run huge deficits. Both run deficits. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #97 January 28, 2008 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gotta love people who want to tax down businesses and the rich, then complain that business aren't paying enough to workers or moving overseas, then complain that the economy is down. It might sound great on the chalkboard to cut taxes for businesses, hope they will invest the money into buinesses and then watch the economy grow. However, whenever we subscribe to that practice we end up with disaster and your very example is a great example of my point. As for moving business overseas, that has everything to do with relieving the taxes of business and not placing more tarriffs on imported goods. If we taxed goods comming in, however manufactured, it would make them cot more, hence our domestic goods a better buy for domestic citizens. So tax relief is what leads to moving industry overseas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The whole 'goose and golden egg" thing is beyond their comprehension, evidently. With any scientific hypothesis, you design a test to evaluate 1 element / attribute, this is called the independent variable. Then you observe and run his test over and over again. Well, we have and your model leads to disaster. Take your 1920's model you talk about, it lead to the Great Depression, and when your party got us into that, the answer was 4 years of Hoover doing the same that you talk about and thousands starved in the streets; I guess they weren't personally responsible, right Neal? FDR came in and tried my model and we had great prosperity and it pulled us out of the GD. So what, 8 years of Republican presidency immediately preceeded the GD, 4 years during sucked worse and 6 terms of Dems brought us thru WWII and out of the GD. Neal, the imperical model just doesn't favor your chalkboard fantasy of cutting taxes to help the overall economy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In 1924, Mellon noted: "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." Detailed Internal Revenue Service data show that the across-the-board rate cuts of the early 1920s-including large cuts at the top end-resulted in greater tax payments and a larger tax share paid by those with high incomes. Figure 1 focuses on those earning more than $100,000. As the marginal tax rate on those high-income earners was cut sharply from 60 percent or more (to a maximum of 73 percent) to just 25 percent, taxes paid by that group soared from roughly $300 billion to $700 billion per year. The share of overall income taxes paid by the group rose from about one-third in the early 1920s to almost two-thirds by the late 1920s. (Note that inflation was virtually zero between 1922 and 1930, thus the tax amounts shown for that period are essentially real changes). The tax cuts allowed the U.S. economy to grow rapidly during the mid- and late-1920s. Between 1922 and 1929, real gross national product grew at an annual average rate of 4.7 percent and the unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 3.2 percent. The Mellon tax cuts restored incentives to work, save, and invest, and discouraged the use of tax shelters. Information from the Cato Institute. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The Dems insistence on taxing down the country shows yet again that those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. Exactly, we are doomed to repeat the GD, the very thing that was preceeded by 8 years of Republican tax cuts. And think about it, we had no or virtually no socil system then (before the GD) to bog down a recovery from Hoover using your philosophy. You'll deam up some BS to respond to this, but it inexcusable. If you want to cite a time in history to declare a recovery from debt, cite the Eisenhoer era. However he would be repulsed with your 3 neo-cons, just disgusted. When Clinton taxed the rich, the debt slowly eased and in 5 years turned the corner. He inherited a 250B/yr deficit and left a 23M deficit, virtually balanced. And he inherited 7% unemp and the tail end of a recession too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Want to see the deficit go away? Freeze spending for 2 years. Of course, that will never work because then the pols can't make their 'bread and circuses' promises in exchange for votes. We virtually match the world dollar for dollar with defense spending, if we simply cut the military spending in half, we would still be by 4 times the world's biggest military soender and we could balance teh budget. Of course we would have to stop teh Iraq war oo, which would break your heart. We don't have to do radical things like stopping all spending, we just have to cut your beloved military soending in half. Hell, Clinton just shaved it and lookat the recovery. Show me a time in history where the debt was lowred while we had a stable economy and were not an exclusive country. Merely having a period of limited success while other things are brewing on the horizon is to look at something as a microcosm. The entire picture and future need to be secure before it becomes a good example of a positive model. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #98 January 28, 2008 Quote Quote Fuck teh Jesus interjection, but other than that, I wonder why no one attacks Sweeden? HMMMmmmmmmmmmmm They've got the Swedish Bikini Team. Come on, man. Hard to argue with that POint stands, we look for trouble, we found it on 9/11, apparently we haven't learned. In fact, didn't Sweeden just join NATO or some world organization for the first time ever to vote against us? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #99 January 28, 2008 QuoteQuote Maybe you'll have noticed that the Bush tax cuts have NOT put us in surplus. They have left us in deeper debt than ever before. The "increased revenues" the GOP brays about are only up IF you ignore both inflation and population growth.Quote Being in deeper debt isn't the fault of the tax cuts, which have brought in record tax revenue as tax cuts always do - the problem is that we can't get CONGRESS to quit spending money they don't have. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...the problem is that we can't get CONGRESS to quit spending money they don't have. I think there is hope for you afterall. Hmmmmmmmmmmm, andwhat are they spending money on? Ohhhhhhhhhh, that's riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, it's the military soending. We spend >500B / yr PLUS the war hobby. Hell, how is it that Canada and most of Europe have all their social programs with a limited military budget, YET THEIR CURRENCY IS KICKING OUR ASS? Once again, your model sucks and has a poor outcome. You have started the learning process, Congress spends too much ON THE FUCKING MILITARY AND THE WAR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #100 January 28, 2008 QuoteEvery bill that goes through Congress has to have some sort of negotiation between the parties... so they're ALL complicit. Ahhhhhhhhh, yet again your model sucks. The WH and Congress have been Repub owned for most of the 7 years. Hell, the SCOYUS has been 7-2 R owned for most of the last 27 years. So you are right, but it doesn't help you that you are since it was YOUR party that drafted the spending bills and YOUR president that rubber stamped it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,184 #83 January 26, 2008 Quote Quote Maybe you'll have noticed that the Bush tax cuts have NOT put us in surplus. They have left us in deeper debt than ever before. The "increased revenues" the GOP brays about are only up IF you ignore both inflation and population growth. Quote Being in deeper debt isn't the fault of the tax cuts, which have brought in record tax revenue as tax cuts always do - the problem is that we can't get CONGRESS to quit spending money they don't have. Now correct those "record" revenues for inflation and population growth. Washington Post, October 17, 2006 "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that." Economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and in the Treasury Department have reached the same conclusion. An analysis of Treasury data prepared last month by the Congressional Research Service estimates that economic growth fueled by the cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of the total cost of the cuts, a broad package of rate reductions and tax credits that has returned an estimated $1.1 trillion to taxpayers since 2001. Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said neither the president nor anyone else in the administration is claiming that tax cuts alone produced the unexpected surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #84 January 26, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Maybe you'll have noticed that the Bush tax cuts have NOT put us in surplus. They have left us in deeper debt than ever before. The "increased revenues" the GOP brays about are only up IF you ignore both inflation and population growth. Quote Being in deeper debt isn't the fault of the tax cuts, which have brought in record tax revenue as tax cuts always do - the problem is that we can't get CONGRESS to quit spending money they don't have. Now correct those "record" revenues for inflation and population growth. If it's so important to you, YOU do it. Typical misdirect like you always do - take something good and try to make it look bad because the Republicans did it instead of the Democrats.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #85 January 26, 2008 “It is very rare and very few economists believe that you can cut taxes and you will get the same amount of revenues.” – Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan Testimony before House Budget Committee September 8, 2004 “I don’t think that, as a general rule, that tax cuts pay for themselves.” –Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke Testimony before Joint Economic Committee April 27, 2006 “As a general matter, most tax cuts do not pay for themselves.” ; OMB Director Nominee Rob Portman Written Response to Questions Submitted Prior to Senate Budget Committee Nomination Hearing May 10, 2006 “[There is] no credible evidence that tax revenues ... rise in the face of lower tax rates.” “[An economist claiming tax cuts pay for themselves is like a] snake oil salesman who is trying to sell a miracle cure.” – Former Chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers N. Gregory Mankiw Introductory college economics textbook, “Principles of Economics,” 1998 “I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.”, 2006 testimony before Congress’s Joint Economic Committee, by Edward Lazear, chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misternatural 0 #86 January 26, 2008 >If it's so important to you, YOU do it. Typical misdirect like you always do - take something good and try to make it look bad because the Republicans did it instead of the Democrats. Ah, there it is, the crux of the biscuit. The reason for 80% of the posts on here. Politics in this country is very tribal- we all want our tribe to win and be in total control even to the point of detriment to the whole. As I got older I began to see the benefit of having a balance of conservative and liberal policies in Washington -it makes the country function as a somewhat stable democracy just like the founders intended. Now, do you really want the govt to be composed of a singular mindset? probably not because thats a totalitarian regime - which history has shown is not viable. As a Democrat would I be willing to sacrifice the presidency to a Republican? Meh, I would be really disappointed but as long as there is democratic congress, it forces rational negotiations to take place.Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires. D S #3.1415 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #87 January 26, 2008 Every bill that goes through Congress has to have some sort of negotiation between the parties... so they're ALL complicit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #88 January 26, 2008 QuoteThe US has borrowed money to pay for things every year in the last 30 years. Republicans have merely borrowed more - especially over the last 6 years. You posted: QuoteOK, we'll take since Reagan and do a partisan accumulation. - Repub - Reagan, Bush, Bush = $6.8 trillion increase - Dem - Clinton = $1.5 trillion increase Using your figures, under Clinton, in 8 years, the debt increased 1.5 trillion, or 187.5 billion per year, on average. Under reagan, bush and bush, over 19 years the debt increased 6.8 trillion, or 357.9 billion per year. Now how does that impeach my assertion that under Clinton we always borrowed, and under Reagan/Bush we always borrowed more? It does not impeach it. You data supports it. I wrote that under clinton, we borroed, too. Under Republican presidents we borrowed more. Bad - to borrow. Worse - to borrow and borrow. QuoteSo our community lawyer wants us to believe, '6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of the other.' No, I am positing that we have -6 of 1 (Dem presidency), and -12 of the other (GOP Presidency). QuoteWhat I extrapolate from that is, especially when we consider the Repub congress for most of GW Bush's term, that the Dems in Congress slowed the spending of Reagan and GWH Bush. Exactly what I believe. And, that the Republican Congress slowed the Spending of the Clinton Presidency. (of course, it can be argued that CLinton slowed the spending of a republican congress and that Reagan/Bush slowed the spending of a Democratic Congress. After all, Presidents DO have veto power.) QuoteWhen we have a Repub WH and congress we see the result, 1/2T+ per year over 7 years = purely pathetic. No, shit. And look what happened when Clinton had a democratic Congress. It was going so badly that Republicans were voted in in Nov. 1994. QuoteBorrowing a little does not = borrowing a ton 1.3 trillion is not "a little." Microsoft has 10,700,000,000 shares. The value of Microsoft stock yesterday was 32.94. Some simple math shows microsoft's market capitalization at 352,458,000,000 - $352.46 billion. So, tell me how borrowing enough money to buy Microsoft every two years is borrowing "a little." It isn't. And you can spin it all you want but it was "borrowing" and it was borrowing "a lot." It simply was not borrowing enough to buy Microsoft every year, as has been the average under Republican presidents. Quoteespecially when you consider the little borrower inherited a huge habit of borrowing and virtually broke it even. I thought Clinton came in to change things. And virtually broke it even? $180 billion per year ain't exactly virtually breaking it even. You either have a surplus, break even or have a deficit. For the past 75 years, deficit has been the rule. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #89 January 26, 2008 Quote You might want to lubricate that keyboard Sorry...not my thing.... I will leave that one handed typing lubrication of their keyboards to the right wingers on here .. with their mastabatory fantasies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #90 January 26, 2008 QuoteEvery bill that goes through Congress has to have some sort of negotiation between the parties... so they're ALL complicit. YOU really did not pay attention to what your Republican Rubber Stamp Congress pulled until the were voted out of power in Nov 2006 did you....there was little to no negotiation... What King GeorgeII wanted King GeorgeII got. And the Democrats were left sitting on the sidelines as the rePUBICans got more and more corrupt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #91 January 26, 2008 Well, chief, it takes a little time to make changes so why not look at the trends: www.futurepower.org/Deficits.gif Oh yes, deficits go UP under GOP administrations, and go down under DEMs. In fact, the biggest debt increases in the history of the Earth took place under GOP administrations.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #92 January 26, 2008 Quote I will leave that one handed typing lubrication of their keyboards to the right wingers on here .. with their mastabatory fantasies. Sorry baby, but when I see all those dots of yours . . . I . . . just . . . can't . . . resist . . . . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #93 January 26, 2008 Quote Being in deeper debt isn't the fault of the tax cuts, which have brought in record tax revenue as tax cuts always do - the problem is that we can't get CONGRESS to quit spending money they don't have. Can't blame Congress for this one. The spending increases of the Bush terms came from Bush himself. In the 6 years where the GOP controlled it, Bush vetoed nothing, while initiating two major wars and creating new departments. In the one year of a Democrat lead Congress, Bush vetoed their attempts to CUT spending by imposing a troop pullout in military spending bills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #94 January 26, 2008 Quote3. They'll be able to claim that the recession really has nothing to do with GOP policies; it's all the new president. We're in a recession?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #95 January 27, 2008 QuoteQuote3. They'll be able to claim that the recession really has nothing to do with GOP policies; it's all the new president. We're in a recession? Bush seems to think his policies will lead to one unless he gives $300 (that he will borrow from overseas) to everyone. Well, not to me, since I already have $300.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #96 January 27, 2008 QuoteWell, chief, it takes a little time to make changes so why not look at the trends: http://www.futurepower.org/Deficits.gif Oh yes, deficits go UP under GOP administrations, and go down under DEMs. You know, I have stated over and over again in this thread that Republicans over spend MORE than dems. I pointed out that they borrow, on average, twice as much as dems. Thus, they are twice as BAD as dems when it comes to that. HOWEVER My poitn is that Dems borrow. "Deficits go down" is another way of saying "We aren't borrowing as much." And my point is that Dems run large deficits, Republicans run huge deficits. Both run deficits. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #97 January 28, 2008 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gotta love people who want to tax down businesses and the rich, then complain that business aren't paying enough to workers or moving overseas, then complain that the economy is down. It might sound great on the chalkboard to cut taxes for businesses, hope they will invest the money into buinesses and then watch the economy grow. However, whenever we subscribe to that practice we end up with disaster and your very example is a great example of my point. As for moving business overseas, that has everything to do with relieving the taxes of business and not placing more tarriffs on imported goods. If we taxed goods comming in, however manufactured, it would make them cot more, hence our domestic goods a better buy for domestic citizens. So tax relief is what leads to moving industry overseas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The whole 'goose and golden egg" thing is beyond their comprehension, evidently. With any scientific hypothesis, you design a test to evaluate 1 element / attribute, this is called the independent variable. Then you observe and run his test over and over again. Well, we have and your model leads to disaster. Take your 1920's model you talk about, it lead to the Great Depression, and when your party got us into that, the answer was 4 years of Hoover doing the same that you talk about and thousands starved in the streets; I guess they weren't personally responsible, right Neal? FDR came in and tried my model and we had great prosperity and it pulled us out of the GD. So what, 8 years of Republican presidency immediately preceeded the GD, 4 years during sucked worse and 6 terms of Dems brought us thru WWII and out of the GD. Neal, the imperical model just doesn't favor your chalkboard fantasy of cutting taxes to help the overall economy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In 1924, Mellon noted: "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." Detailed Internal Revenue Service data show that the across-the-board rate cuts of the early 1920s-including large cuts at the top end-resulted in greater tax payments and a larger tax share paid by those with high incomes. Figure 1 focuses on those earning more than $100,000. As the marginal tax rate on those high-income earners was cut sharply from 60 percent or more (to a maximum of 73 percent) to just 25 percent, taxes paid by that group soared from roughly $300 billion to $700 billion per year. The share of overall income taxes paid by the group rose from about one-third in the early 1920s to almost two-thirds by the late 1920s. (Note that inflation was virtually zero between 1922 and 1930, thus the tax amounts shown for that period are essentially real changes). The tax cuts allowed the U.S. economy to grow rapidly during the mid- and late-1920s. Between 1922 and 1929, real gross national product grew at an annual average rate of 4.7 percent and the unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 3.2 percent. The Mellon tax cuts restored incentives to work, save, and invest, and discouraged the use of tax shelters. Information from the Cato Institute. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The Dems insistence on taxing down the country shows yet again that those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. Exactly, we are doomed to repeat the GD, the very thing that was preceeded by 8 years of Republican tax cuts. And think about it, we had no or virtually no socil system then (before the GD) to bog down a recovery from Hoover using your philosophy. You'll deam up some BS to respond to this, but it inexcusable. If you want to cite a time in history to declare a recovery from debt, cite the Eisenhoer era. However he would be repulsed with your 3 neo-cons, just disgusted. When Clinton taxed the rich, the debt slowly eased and in 5 years turned the corner. He inherited a 250B/yr deficit and left a 23M deficit, virtually balanced. And he inherited 7% unemp and the tail end of a recession too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Want to see the deficit go away? Freeze spending for 2 years. Of course, that will never work because then the pols can't make their 'bread and circuses' promises in exchange for votes. We virtually match the world dollar for dollar with defense spending, if we simply cut the military spending in half, we would still be by 4 times the world's biggest military soender and we could balance teh budget. Of course we would have to stop teh Iraq war oo, which would break your heart. We don't have to do radical things like stopping all spending, we just have to cut your beloved military soending in half. Hell, Clinton just shaved it and lookat the recovery. Show me a time in history where the debt was lowred while we had a stable economy and were not an exclusive country. Merely having a period of limited success while other things are brewing on the horizon is to look at something as a microcosm. The entire picture and future need to be secure before it becomes a good example of a positive model. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #98 January 28, 2008 Quote Quote Fuck teh Jesus interjection, but other than that, I wonder why no one attacks Sweeden? HMMMmmmmmmmmmmm They've got the Swedish Bikini Team. Come on, man. Hard to argue with that POint stands, we look for trouble, we found it on 9/11, apparently we haven't learned. In fact, didn't Sweeden just join NATO or some world organization for the first time ever to vote against us? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #99 January 28, 2008 QuoteQuote Maybe you'll have noticed that the Bush tax cuts have NOT put us in surplus. They have left us in deeper debt than ever before. The "increased revenues" the GOP brays about are only up IF you ignore both inflation and population growth.Quote Being in deeper debt isn't the fault of the tax cuts, which have brought in record tax revenue as tax cuts always do - the problem is that we can't get CONGRESS to quit spending money they don't have. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...the problem is that we can't get CONGRESS to quit spending money they don't have. I think there is hope for you afterall. Hmmmmmmmmmmm, andwhat are they spending money on? Ohhhhhhhhhh, that's riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, it's the military soending. We spend >500B / yr PLUS the war hobby. Hell, how is it that Canada and most of Europe have all their social programs with a limited military budget, YET THEIR CURRENCY IS KICKING OUR ASS? Once again, your model sucks and has a poor outcome. You have started the learning process, Congress spends too much ON THE FUCKING MILITARY AND THE WAR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #100 January 28, 2008 QuoteEvery bill that goes through Congress has to have some sort of negotiation between the parties... so they're ALL complicit. Ahhhhhhhhh, yet again your model sucks. The WH and Congress have been Repub owned for most of the 7 years. Hell, the SCOYUS has been 7-2 R owned for most of the last 27 years. So you are right, but it doesn't help you that you are since it was YOUR party that drafted the spending bills and YOUR president that rubber stamped it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Lucky... 0 #100 January 28, 2008 QuoteEvery bill that goes through Congress has to have some sort of negotiation between the parties... so they're ALL complicit. Ahhhhhhhhh, yet again your model sucks. The WH and Congress have been Repub owned for most of the 7 years. Hell, the SCOYUS has been 7-2 R owned for most of the last 27 years. So you are right, but it doesn't help you that you are since it was YOUR party that drafted the spending bills and YOUR president that rubber stamped it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
