Reagan on the Fifty Dollar Bill . . .

[quade 4]

Quote

The most solemn suggestion I can come up with for "honoring" him would be to put his likeness on a Quija board.

No, no. You're thinking of Nancy Reagan.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

The most solemn suggestion I can come up with for "honoring" him would be to put his likeness on a Quija board.

No, no. You're thinking of Nancy Reagan.

Ok, but an image of a pussy-whipping would probably upset the GOP.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

The most solemn suggestion I can come up with for "honoring" him would be to put his likeness on a Quija board.

Hoping the public has learnred their lesson about electing senile grade B movie actors to the highest office in the land.

Just wait. Arnorlds' coming.Morons

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[matthewcline 0]

I am pretty sure he can't be a resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, some thing about a birth certificate...

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[BillyVance 35]

Quote

I am pretty sure he can't be a resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, some thing about a birth certificate...

Matt

You are correct. Born in Austria, wasn't he?

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I, for one, tend to look at Congress when checking out deficits. Since Congress passes budgets, spending bills, etc., I foist the blame for deficits on them.

Hence, I don't blame Obama much for the fiscal mess right now. Congress keeps pushing more spending without the scratch to pay for it. Take a look at health care financing reform. Congress has the authority - not the POTUS.

Just something to think about. (History seems to demonstrate that things work best with a GOP Congress and a Dem POTUS.

Yeah I think the Clinton years seemed pretty good economically, was congress more than 50% republican?

During the first 2 years of the Clinton pres, congress was D controlled, taxes were raised to 40% top brkt and spending cut. Then it switched to all R-controlled the remainder of the Clinton years and then it became a pissing contest and Clinton had to shut down the gov once for a short time to get them to send him an annual finance bill. But the tax increase was done early and that started the fiscal ball rolling, small cuts were made later as concessions for things like min wage increase. The 40% top brkt remained in effect until GWB lowerd it and we know what happened.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

During the first 2 years of the Clinton pres, congress was D controlled, taxes were raised to 40% top brkt and spending cut.

Fixed that for you.

Quote

Then it switched to all R-controlled the remainder of the Clinton years and then it became a pissing contest and Clinton had to shut down the gov once for a short time to get them to send him an annual finance bill. before he signed a balanced budget they sent him.

Fixed that for you, too.

Quote

But the tax increase was done early and that started the fiscal ball rolling

Actually, it wasn't until the tax cuts in 97 that the 'fiscal ball started rolling.

Quote

small cuts were made later as concessions for things like min wage increase. The 40% top brkt remained in effect until GWB lowerd it and we know what happened.

Yeah, tax revenues shot up.

Unfortunately, the trend of Congress spending like drunken frat boys at a strip club is not only continuing, but accelerating.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Actually, it wasn't until the tax cuts in 97 that the 'fiscal ball started rolling.

Here's a graph from your own rag, the Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue

- In 1991 you can see the receipts graph go from a down trend to a neutral one as GHWB's tax incr is applied to law.

- As it starts to incr as Clinton takes office, it really shoots upward as the R's take control of congress in Jan 95. It already has its direction.

- It remains shooting upward as receipts are high. Then as Clinton is leveraged into the 97 Cap Gains cuts that you cite, you see the receipts shade off a bit late 97-98. The tax code remained unchanged from 93 to 97 and the result of Republican leveraging is that the receipts shade off with a MINOR tweeking such as Cap Gains.

- It resumes in 99 till 2000, then the recessions and receipts drop.

- Spending incr only modestly throughout the Clinton years, about the rate of inflation and population growth. Of course the US dollar made huge gains during this time and the GDP was record-setting.

So Mike, what's your point? Receipts were heavily increased by Jan 95 and shaded off a tad as the Cap Gains cuts were made, which caused a hiccup in receipts.

Quote

ME: small cuts were made later as concessions for things like min wage increase.

MIKE: Yeah, tax revenues shot up.

No, as you see in late 97-98, revenues shaded off. A site that represents your own party illustrates this.

Quote

Unfortunately, the trend of Congress spending like drunken frat boys at a strip club is not only continuing, but accelerating.

Really? The graph even shows that in early 2009 it dips substantially and receipts go from a massive downward mess to a slight upward movement.

Mike, your arguments are just too easy, pls try again and this time come correct.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Actually, it wasn't until the tax cuts in 97 that the 'fiscal ball started rolling.

Here's a graph from your own rag, the Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue

Glad to see you're FINALLY realizing that heritage has some good analysis.

Quote

- In 1991 you can see the receipts graph go from a down trend to a neutral one as GHWB's tax incr is applied to law.

Yes, there was growth in the early part of the decade:

Link

Quote

In the four years following the Clinton tax hike (from 1993 through 1996):

The economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent in inflation-adjusted terms;
Employment rose by 11.6 million jobs;[3]
Average real hourly wages rose a total of five cents per hour;[4] and
Total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose 78 percent in inflation-adjusted terms.

Quote

- As it starts to incr as Clinton takes office, it really shoots upward as the R's take control of congress in Jan 95. It already has its direction.

1995... that would be the year that the Reps forced Clinton to sign a balanced budget, would it not?

Quote

- It remains shooting upward as receipts are high. Then as Clinton is leveraged into the 97 Cap Gains cuts that you cite, you see the receipts shade off a bit late 97-98. The tax code remained unchanged from 93 to 97 and the result of Republican leveraging is that the receipts shade off with a MINOR tweeking such as Cap Gains.

Minor tweaking - yeah, making changes in tax that affects a $51 TRILLION MARKET is minor - in Luckyworld.

But, let's look and see what the 'minor tweaking' did, shall we?

Quote

In 1995, the first year for which these data are available, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested.[5] Venture capital is especially critical to a vibrant economy because high-risk/high-return investment permits promising new businesses to blossom, rapidly spreading new technologies and new ideas into the marketplace and across the economy. Such investments, when successful, generate returns to investors that are subject primarily to the tax on capital gains. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again.

A seven-fold increase in 4 years - looks damned impressive for a 'minor tweak'.

Quote

The economy averaged 4.2 percent real growth per year from 1997 to 2000--a full percentage point higher than during the expansion following the 1993 tax hike (illustrated in the graph above). Employment increased by another 11.5 million jobs, which is roughly comparable to the job growth in the preceding four-year period. Real wages, however, grew at 6.5 percent, which is much stronger than the 0.8 percent growth of the preceding period (illustrated in the graph below). Finally, total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose an astounding 95 percent. The period from 1997 to 2000 forms the memory of the booming 1990s, and it followed the passage of tax relief that was originally opposed by President Clinton.

Quote

Quote

ME: small cuts were made later as concessions for things like min wage increase. The 40% top brkt remained in effect until GWB lowerd it and we know what happened.

MIKE: Yeah, tax revenues shot up.

No, as you see in late 97-98, revenues shaded off. A site that represents your own party illustrates this.

You forgot part of your own quote, didn't you? I'm SURE that it wasn't anything dishonest to change the whole meaning of the response, you CERTAINLY wouldn't do that, would you, Lucky? I'm sure it was just a simple oversight on your part, so I added it back in for you above, bolded.

Now that the quote is correct, who knew that Bush was President in 97-98? Truly amazing, the way history runs in Lucky-world.

Quote

Quote

Unfortunately, the trend of Congress spending like drunken frat boys at a strip club is not only continuing, but accelerating.

Really? The graph even shows that in early 2009 it dips substantially and receipts go from a massive downward mess to a slight upward movement.

Yeah, really.

Quote

Mike, your arguments are just too easy, pls try again and this time come correct.

Looks like I 'came correct' the first time - unlike your quote.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Actually, it wasn't until the tax cuts in 97 that the 'fiscal ball started rolling.

Here's a graph from your own rag, the Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue

Quote

Glad to see you're FINALLY realizing that heritage has some good analysis.

I did state "graph" not analysis, but I don't expect you to be honest. Their analysis is skewed, their data, in this case, is at least close if not exact.

Quote

- In 1991 you can see the receipts graph go from a down trend to a neutral one as GHWB's tax incr is applied to law.

Quote

Yes, there was growth in the early part of the decade:

Link

Yep, from GHWB's tax incr in 90-91 to Clinton's in 93: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

Quote

- As it starts to incr as Clinton takes office, it really shoots upward as the R's take control of congress in Jan 95. It already has its direction.

Quote

1995... that would be the year that the Reps forced Clinton to sign a balanced budget, would it not?

The growth had already been established in 93-94 and on as the graph clearly states. It's not as if it took off in 95, it was already surging as the R's took office in Jan 95, only you can retroactively assign credit.

Quote

- It remains shooting upward as receipts are high. Then as Clinton is leveraged into the 97 Cap Gains cuts that you cite, you see the receipts shade off a bit late 97-98. The tax code remained unchanged from 93 to 97 and the result of Republican leveraging is that the receipts shade off with a MINOR tweeking such as Cap Gains.

Quote

Minor tweaking - yeah, making changes in tax that affects a $51 TRILLION MARKET is minor - in Luckyworld.

I see you avoid the tax receipts drop in late 97-98 as the cap gains tax reduction cuts into the great recovery.

And you can try to bring the entire 51 T market in all you want - that doesn't address the issue to bring in the entire economy, what % of all receipts come from what kinds of taxes, income, cap gains, etc?

Also, lower cap gains tax might tend to incentivize people to sell investments, causing a drop in long-term investment, hence not good for the economy. Cap gains are only accounted when investment profits are realized anyway, so it's not as exacting as income tax from jobs or businesses.

Quote

But, let's look and see what the 'minor tweaking' did, shall we?

In 1995, the first year for which these data are available, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested.[5] Venture capital is especially critical to a vibrant economy because high-risk/high-return investment permits promising new businesses to blossom, rapidly spreading new technologies and new ideas into the marketplace and across the economy. Such investments, when successful, generate returns to investors that are subject primarily to the tax on capital gains. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again.

YET THE US GOV RECEIPTS SHADED OFF AND YOU CALL THAT SUCCESS. SO what your point is is that the cap gains cuts helped teh private sector and reduced gov tax receipts; I agree. I just wish the money kept flowng to the treasury to pay down the debt rather than to pad the pockets of the billionaires.

Quote

A seven-fold increase in 4 years - looks damned impressive for a 'minor tweak'.

Right, while fed tax receipts shaded off. See, Mike, we are on the same page here, cap gains cuts made the ultra-rich even more rich and cut into the fed's receipts, so let's quit arguing the same side of the same issue and get to the real point; why should we keep shoveling massive bucks to those who use it for score?

Quote

The economy averaged 4.2 percent real growth per year from 1997 to 2000--a full percentage point higher than during the expansion following the 1993 tax hike (illustrated in the graph above). Employment increased by another 11.5 million jobs, which is roughly comparable to the job growth in the preceding four-year period. Real wages, however, grew at 6.5 percent, which is much stronger than the 0.8 percent growth of the preceding period (illustrated in the graph below). Finally, total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose an astounding 95 percent. The period from 1997 to 2000 forms the memory of the booming 1990s, and it followed the passage of tax relief that was originally opposed by President Clinton.

Again, this is analysis for which I don't agree with, I posted the graph as it was first I found and it appears accurate. I believe that the jobs growth and debt / defict benefits were due to higher income taxes. So just beause you can cut-n-paste doesn't make it law. And as for what Clinton wanted or thought would be good, he never wanted the cap gains tax cut, it was a concession for min wage increase.

Quote

Quote

ME: small cuts were made later as concessions for things like min wage increase. The 40% top brkt remained in effect until GWB lowerd it and we know what happened.

MIKE: Yeah, tax revenues shot up.

No, as you see in late 97-98, revenues shaded off. A site that represents your own party illustrates this.

Quote

You forgot part of your own quote, didn't you? I'm SURE that it wasn't anything dishonest to change the whole meaning of the response, you CERTAINLY wouldn't do that, would you, Lucky? I'm sure it was just a simple oversight on your part, so I added it back in for you above, bolded.

Now that the quote is correct, who knew that Bush was President in 97-98? Truly amazing, the way history runs in Lucky-world.

How sad, you don't know the difference between income tax and capital gains tax. Cap gains can play a component of income tax, but it has its own schedule and is tax differently and seperately. CLINTON'S INCOME TAX INCR AS EST IN 93 WAS IN EFFECT FOR HIS ENTIRE TERM, REGARDLESS OF THE 97 CAP GAINS CUT FROM 28% TO 20%. So the top brkt of 40% was in effect, that is a fact no matter what the cap gains tax was.

Quote

Quote

Unfortunately, the trend of Congress spending like drunken frat boys at a strip club is not only continuing, but accelerating.

Really? The graph even shows that in early 2009 it dips substantially and receipts go from a massive downward mess to a slight upward movement.

Quote

Yeah, really.

Is this your way of running from the point? Yes, the graph shows in early 2009 that spending drops and receipts go from vertically down to a slight incr.

Quote

Mike, your arguments are just too easy, pls try again and this time come correct.

Quote

Looks like I 'came correct' the first time - unlike your quote.

Only if you confuse cap gains from income tax and conveniently interchange them. Fed tax receipts shaded off after the cap gains tax was enacted, you can't run from that. I bet that the wealth of the very rich proportionatley rose, I think we can agree with that assumption. So again, we are arguing the same point, we differ in that you are ok with gov debt and a rich private sector, I'm ok with a baknced budget and reasonable debt with a well-off private sector.

I see you avoided these:

- Spending incr only modestly throughout the Clinton years, about the rate of inflation and population growth. Of course the US dollar made huge gains during this time and the GDP was record-setting.

So Mike, what's your point? Receipts were heavily increased by Jan 95 and shaded off a tad as the Cap Gains cuts were made, which caused a hiccup in receipts.


And I say Heritage as for their editorial, I like more objective sources like: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

Look at the graph and you see as GHWB's tax incr was implemented, exacerbated by Clinton's tax incr, the deficit IMMEDIATLEY fell to an eventual surplus. As your hero chopped taxes it turned to a deficit once again. This isn't a partisan issue in that GHWB and Clinton both raised taxes with like results, Reagan and GWB cut them with like results.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints

So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.


Yea, until the genius electorate voted in Mike's hero; that was the 'if only for a while.'

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I did state "graph" not analysis, but I don't expect you to be honest.

Heritage doesn't create the data, they analyze it.
Given your creative editing of your own words in the last post, you're the LAST FUCKING PERSON to be talking about honesty, tyvm.

Quote

Their analysis is skewed

Your opinion.

Quote

, their data, in this case, is at least close if not exact.

You must have missed the part at the bottom of the page where they state the charts are based on info from OMB and CBO.

Reading is fundamental.

Quote

- In 1991 you can see the receipts graph go from a down trend to a neutral one as GHWB's tax incr is applied to law.

Quote

Yes, there was growth in the early part of the decade:

Link

Yep, from GHWB's tax incr in 90-91 to Clinton's in 93: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

I did state "graph" not analysis, but I don't expect you to be honest.

Heritage doesn't create the data, they analyze spin it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I did state "graph" not analysis, but I don't expect you to be honest.

Heritage doesn't create the data, they analyze spin it.

*yawn*

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nightflighter27 0]

well..let me note this one




=====================
http://sky-dives.com

[happythoughts 0]

I hear that there is a move among Clintons constituency to put his picture on singles.

Apparently, single moms putting themselves through
college is a large group.