skipbelt 0
Recommended Posts
Lucky... 0
Quoteconcept number one
the federal government produces little tangible benefit to a capitalist economy , agree or disagree ? i really hope this tack is effective , otherwise i should skip to the lucky tax policy solution for perfecting the economy !
So there will be no address of this then, huh? Why not just go away, you've illustrated you cannot answer, duck-n-run like a good little neo-con.
_____________
QuoteQuoteit's amazing and entertaining to see stubbornness and a modicum of intellect be derailed into alternate realities !
Which explains you ducking out on these issues I keep trying to get you to address:
_______________________QuoteQuoteso you looked up ad hominum , now you know what it means , now maybe when you call for avoiding ad hominum attacks against you , you will extend the favor to everyone else !
I can cite months, years ago where I used it in correct context. You need to take that shit to car forums; they're just that naive to be impressed. Now, as soon as the junior intellects stop changing the issue and trying to look bright and decide to address the issues I posted maybe we can actually get somewhere.
Here, I'll post them again:Quoteback on topic , taxes or revenues are only one part of the equation , spending is a much larger factor on debt and deficit , they must be considered and evaluated together as to how they affect macro economy and debt/deficit.
Oh, so if they are mutually as important as each other, let's examine times when spending is high and taxes low and vice versa.
Taxes low / spending high = Reagan, GWB resulted in high debt accrual.
Taxes high / spending high = 1940's thru 1960's. Resulted in the debt falling several times and when it rose, it never ran away.
To go to low spending we would have to go to the 1920's, an era where comparison to today's economy is irrelevant. Taxes were low and spending was low, the debt actually fell, but this led to an immediate era called the Great Depression, so that era was not a good model either.
So it looks like high taxation periods were the best, yielded the best results as far as debt accrual and overall eonomic bliss. Spending will always be high from here on out and even if it isn't, there is no evidence that eevn low taxes would be beneficial other than RW supply side theory, which has gone unproven to be beneficial.Quotewill this put to bed your peurile urge to trot out your tax only theory ?
Mine isn't theory, mine has been proven. Here is a chart of top tax brkts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg
The best years were under high taxes, the worst under low taxes; so yours is unfounded theory, mine is statistically proven sound.
Show me a major federal tax cut that has led to overall financial benefit. If you can dream one up, find 2, then 3, etc. Since, as you infer/claim, low taxes lead to prosperity, these examples should be plentiful.
Tell ya what, you'll never address those, so just this:
Show me a major federal tax cut that has led to overall financial benefit. If you can dream one up, find 2, then 3, etc.
___________________________
Here's your point I will address, as I'm not afraid to answer youyr questuions as you are mine:
the federal government produces little tangible benefit to a capitalist economy , agree or disagree ?
I guess we look at times when the government was more involved versus less involved.
LESS INVOLVED:
1) 1920's tax cuts and deregualtion led to the Great Depression, massive suffering, bust of the markets, banks, etc.
2) 1980's under Reagan who cut taxes as corrupt Harding/Coolidge did, led to massive debt accrual as never seen before, esp not in time of war.
3) GWB lowered taxes and deegulated some industries, DOL, etc. We saw a great economy, fed surplus turn to 5 T debt in 8 years with most industrie on the brink of failure: Auto, banks, mortgage, etc.
MORE INVOLVED:
4) Hoover finally raised income taxes 260% and other taxes 200%+ 2 1/2 years after Black Tuesday, then FDR raised them some too, then healing began.
5) FDR's New Deals opened up social programs, SS, 1938 FLSA, etc to create a form of hyper-involved government and people did much better, had protections, and were much more benefitted.
6) Thru the 1950's taxes were high, government was involved and the debt fell. Taxes were boosted up the last year of LBJ's term in 68-69 and the debt fell. LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rts Act and peopel were benefitted.
7) Going back to the 1850's and back when the government was appathetic to slavery, people were disadvantaged, not just blacks, and then when Lincoln became involved the country became more advantageous to the masses.
8) When Clinton became more involved, raised taxes, gave education credits, etc the country benefitted.
So I have illustrated several examples of tangible benefit/damage on both sides, so lay down your one-liner, avoid teh previous issues and comment on a typo and feel victorious.
As long as you feel like a winner in your mind, that's what's important.
QuoteFind where I wrote that I had a CJ degree and I'll ban myself for a week.
Yeah, right.
QuoteYou build trailers
No, but I used to. Started when I was about 8. When you live in a house with no running water and a coal furnace for heat you usually start working at an early age.
QuoteI went into the AF @ 17 and have worked acft all my life
I seriously doubt that given your ignorance on correct repair methods.
QuoteTell me of your amazing and vast experience.
The lives of millions of people every day depend upon the design and analysis work I have done on weldments in aircraft. Can you say the same?
Give it up Mr. Self-Proclaimed Finance/Taxes/Economics/Aircraft/Politics wizard.
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
mirage62 0
Quote
I even agreed with you about Mirage trying to argue that if a person isn't a skydiver, they must not know about economics.
ROTFLOL, where did I say ANYTHING about economics and YOU????
I just asked if you really jumped - perhaps the wrong forum to ask in - but you have taken that and tried to say that I said you don't know anything about economics?
To use your tact I should say something like...
These liberaltards just can't keep there facts straight
BTW with the shear # of post you do I can understand your not being able to keep up with who attacked you over your economics.
Ahh playing with the pigs is so much fun, but some of us still work and jump.
Alway always keep in mind I don't give a fuck
Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little
turtlespeed 226
Quote
I did not realize that memorizing the entire US Constitution was a requirement.
Why would you have to be different than a house or senate member, right?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
the federal government produces little tangible benefit to a capitalist economy , agree or disagree ? i really hope this tack is effective , otherwise i should skip to the lucky tax policy solution for perfecting the economy !
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites