Lucky...

the only bullshit is the liberals that refuse to believe the words coming out of Obama's own mouth. If you refuse to believe it then I guess you fall into that catagory. Are you naive? I'm sure it was a sound bite either pieced together or a fragment taken out of context. Brother, I guess when you look for something to be true, you'll grasp at anything. Why not find those sound bites and post them. In court, if you have a recording it must be in its entirety, if you're a whacko RW extremist and run a radio show you can just piece them together and the lemmings will believe.

How do you know that? Wendy P. well he said he is a christian and did belong to a church that had rev wright - that would be radical. I heard 5 different sound bites this morning of Obama talking about his muslim religion and how he was raised in the muslim faith - that would be the lie. one is true and it doesn't really make a difference. Sound bites, as in statements taken out of context and aired on RW radio, Limbaugh, etc? Yea, share those with us.

Where on earth have you got that from? Please tell me you're not serious?! I am indeed serious. If you think the same as John, perhaps you can tell me why? I can tell you why. Although its not true, there are MANY stupid Americans who believe that President Obama is Muslim! Riiight. Those are people who do want a christian president and who do care if the president is a muslim (hence why it was made up in the first place). That's the opposite of what JR said. I don't care if he is a muslim, I do care if he lies about his faith and if he is a radical in his faith. We do know he has either lied about his faith or is radical about his faith and that is disturbing to me 1) How has he lied about his faith in Christianity 2) Why does he have to disclose it or even disclose it honestly? He must disclose his taxes, assets, etc, not his faith.

Where on earth have you got that from? Please tell me you're not serious?! I am indeed serious. If you think the same as John, perhaps you can tell me why? I can tell you why. Although its not true, there are MANY stupid Americans who believe that President Obama is Muslim! Right, because he said the Muslims have the right to build their worship house where tehy want, all of the sudden he is a Muslim. Bill defends gay rights, feels they s/b able to marry; which moron in here thinks he's gay as a result of his belief they have the right to celebrate their lifestyle?

I don't care if they or anyone is Christian (or any religion), as long as they don't legislate/rule with any thought of that belief.

says the guy whose theory (wildly changing) was that we need a 70% tax rate to be well off, despite obvious evidence to the contrary. We wouldn't have seen the gains under Clinton had the dot.com boom not happened. We would have seen some gain, just not the massive gain we did. Taxes need to go to 50% tomorrow and 60-70% in a couple years or we're just fucked, regardless of who's in office. The American public is so uneducated that they are in love with tax cuts and actually think they help; the data shows the exact opposite.

says the guy whose theory (wildly changing) was that we need a 70% tax rate to be well off, despite obvious evidence to the contrary. You talk all this evidence, so show us how great it was when taxes were the lowest. - Debt standard: Since FDR, the start of the new economy with social welfare, military, etc we haven't done well and the debt has soared once we come off 70%. Here's a graph describing such: http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx141/Br549x123/TopMargTaxBrktanddetails.jpg Look at 1969, that's the last time the debt has fallen, right during that brief tax increase. Then look at fascist ronnies years; the debt goes nuts. More inconspicuously, look at the 1970's where taxes were dropped to 70%, you can proportionately see the debt rise during those years, capped off by FR's massive cut to 28%. Here: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hemptopia.org/images/debt1.gif&imgrefurl=http://hemptopia.org/Greatest_Gen_s_longest_War.php&h=431&w=456&sz=5&tbnid=-hKLrycBd3UgyM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnational%2Bdebt%2Bgraph&zoom=1&hl=en&usg=__sngzqhl9MTNUhMw40j49CxtAcTQ=&sa=X&ei=0UBvTMr1BJGesQPFrMG5Cw&ved=0CDAQ9QEwBA You can see the debt starts its ascent in the late 60's, by mid 50's it's picking up steam then capped off in the 80's. Now look at my tax chart; there is an inverse effect as taxes fall, the debt rises. Hard to deny, I'm sure you'll find a way. Txes are cut to 70% in the mid 60's, right before the debt charts creeps up. In 1969 in fell with that brief tax increase. If you guys don't want to refer to teh data, I don't blame you, it really doesn't support your tax cuts helps claim.

Sucks to be you guys, I can't believe you guys don't look in the mirror and and acknowledge this data/evidence trumps the shit out of your nonexistent evidence. So it would follow that a reduction in government spending would have much the same affect as a tax increase? No, because a reduction is spending, usually affects the lower classes, stagnates the economy. Again, it depends where the spending cuts are, so that is a vague question. But tax cuts help virtually only the upper class since they pay most of the taxes and possess most of teh money. So distribution of wealth continues to spread under your proposed plan. If we look at the Clintin years, he and congress sent up plans in his forst year to rause taxes 9% and cut spending, esp military spending and that combination worked well. Of coirse the dot.com boom didn't hirt either, but he would have seen some gains w/o it. Just think if he had been able to raise taxes even more and perhaps cut spending even more, he undountedly would have seen the debt shrink. Of course it would be academic as the genius in waiting would have cut taxes and increased spending, so that would have undone any good. So far you are the only opposing poster to be constructive, why not take anything from that site I posted or my writings and refute it? I would welcome it. If your theory is that tax cuts help, please show me where they historically have, since any person's theories are best supported by historical evidence. I think it seems clear that massive tax cuts only do harm. Now if teh rich do their part and reinvest then I could see it working. But they don't and I can't blame them; it makes sense to pull your money to safety if you can do so w/o penalty. I don't want to rip the rich, but I do want to force reinvestment, after all, they became rich under this system in most cases, why not keep it going and even build your wealth while creating jobs for others less successful? This is how I see it: - The rich make millions - Taxes are high, they must reinvest in order to keep it so they do - Many times the rich have virtually all of their capital tied up in investments, so they are only rich on paper and not in their account. So they reinvest, build new ventures, employ more people, etc. SInce their money is tied up in assets, they must borrow to purchase, so they do and keep the banks solvent. They keep people employed via their investments. - Lower taxes and now the rich decide to pull their cash, pay what little they have to if anything that they can't writeoff. Now they buy everything with cash, but are often very cheap. They don't borrow money and the banks go insolvent and contract. The GDP falls as does unemployment rise. Wages fall and the rich do well, masses do like shit. - Now, keep taxes high and the rich must reinvest a lot of their gross earnings in order to keep them, they borrow money, employ people and actually become more rich but on paper thru investments. They actually care about the state of the nation since they are so vested into it. This worls well for everyone and historically is upheld via all kinds of evidence.

Sucks to be you guys, I can't believe you guys don't look in the mirror and and acknowledge this data/evidence trumps the shit out of your nonexistent evidence.

That and attacking the source are all tactics taught by you perfesser Lucky's source is not one I would choose, but it's every bit as legitimate for discussion as hwt's source on Grover Cleveland, or someone else's frequent use of Strategy Page, and a rather better source than the right wing blogosphere sources that are often used.. Againj, I don't care about thesiurce, I'm not putting any merits to teh source, I've said this 3 or 4 times now. I'm asking people to refute the merits of the message, the same one I've extended several times. They can't, sothey insult. Or in Mike's case, he claims he has refuted it, obviously he has not or he would. Neo-cons hide behind the concept, the dream of trickle down but are unable to demonstrate/illustrate any historical success in the midst of the last 80+ years of failure. They live on this ideal, which is why they are legitimately ideologues. If they could come up with any evidence they would. They can't so they turn it on me or the source which I am not promoting, just the historically factual renderings in the article. Fuck the author, fuck teh website; actually disporve the writings/evidence.

Leave your family out of this. See, I knew no one could actually address the issue, rather attack the author. I'm giving them no credibility, just address the words. Oh, I see, you can't.

This is a site I ran across, I'm not asking anyone to buy it just because it's Alternet, whatever the hell they are, who they are; I don't know or care. I'm not pushing these guys as an authority, just try to refute the logic. They say what I've been saying for a while, the ideas I came to by myself with simple observation. http://www.alternet.org/economy/106979/ Yep, the ideas of trickle-down seem so sound, yet they have been proven wrong time and again. Now it's just an ideolgues dream/fantasy. Counterintuitive is a great way to state tax increases being positive. Well, just a coincidence or will we use the sliding neo-con scale to move around credit for growth? Kinda obvious guys, live in denial, I'm ok withit. Well? Who to blame? Are you gonna blame the GD on Wilson? Even your own original neo-con, Hoover had to raise taxes 260% in one fell swoop as he realized tax cuts my friends were idiotic. And this is the theme of my point: High taxes create an incentive to reinvest profits into long-term growth. When fascist garbage like Reagan cuts taxes, all the corporate crooks see this as a way to pull profits w/o actually having to cheat and lie on your taxes. This is tax cheating legitimized and legalized. Hell, even when one of his cronies was caught cheating, he pardoned his criminal conviction. COULD IT BE ANY MORE FUCKING CLEAR: FASCIST PIG RONNIE WANTED TO MAKE LEGAL CORPORATE TAX EVASION. And he did. It just makes sense, if I had gobs of money and I had to reinvest it due to high taxes, once the tax rate dropped the window was open and I better pull it before some Democrat with a conscience came in and raised taxes again, closing the window. Then, if I decided to venture into business, I better pull my profits quick before they get trapped and I'm forced to reinvest. With high taxes, the only way to retain the bulk of the wealth created by a business is by reinvesting it in the business -- in plants, equipment, staff, research and development, new products and all the rest. I've been saying just this for some time. Of course, with higher taxes now you have to build that warehouse and man it 24/7 or just turn over your money to the gov, so you build it. You knew it was teh right thing to do, you were just too busy pulling profits to do the right thing. The movie, Pretty Woman illustrates this as a corporate raider who put people out of work. This is what I was saying. Profit taking benefits a couple people, long-term wealth creation benefits the entire country. This is part of trickle down logic. It would work if teh very rich played their part, but at the last minute they pull out and decide not to reinvest, this stagnates the system, drives down labor prices and trashes the system. Now, hopefully Rushesque comments stay out, but there will be several one-liners meaning nothing, hopefully we can get some good discourse here. Again, I'm not posting the author as an authority or no specific credibility being assigned to them, just the writing's content. EDITED TO ADD: This is obviously a leftist publication. For the 3rd time, I'm stating that I'm not assigning crerdibility to the publication either way, I just like the article, so take it for it's words not that I'm saying this author is right because...... Now see if the brainless drones can actually address the substance w/o attacking the author. If you need to, assign the article to me, it's what I've been saying for a long time, virtually verbatim.

+1, but the typical white male doesn't get that ;ogic, so don't expect a lot of agreement here.

Yep, just data and graphs that show what a bunch of loser RW maggot politicians are, but some just avoid those.

I think 10 is a record... even for him. must be a slow night... I empathize. I sympathise . . although - it saddens me a bit, i look forward to reading posts with insight and substance that is so rarely found here anyway, but then to have to skip over 10 posts in a row, dissapointing, I thought I w3as going to have some reading material for a small while. I know and to break your short span of attention you must have forgotten the thread title at the end of the 10 posts and had to back and write it down.

I think 10 is a record... even for him. must be a slow night... I empathize. WOW, 2 neo-cons who can count; I'm impressed, they must be teaching basic mathematics at the assylum.

Is that a requirement now? I must have missed the memo. Nope, but to be closed-minded, as you, Kelp and the rest of the clan, denotes where you're at and who you are.

how many transgendered friends do you have? even in SF, they're not exactly common. (10 consecutive postings, I see, and what may be a repeat of your onion debacle) Next they'll teach you how to read now that you can go all the way to 10. You can tell a real hard-up person when they need to go back 7 months to reveal a non-issue. But of course I have to out your neo-conbrother, since you are joined at the hip and remind you that hwt thought MSNBCBS was a media outlet. Unfortunate that you can't actually address any of teh 10 posts, maybe I should have entered 20. But you see, you hat liberalism and all the many attributes of it so much you are angrily banging on your keyboard hard-up rhetoric that is mostly not affilliated with the actual thread. Too bad, awwwww, you hate Obama, awwww - poor baby. I enjoy the fact that you hate the current political scheme. As for transgendered friends, I have never met any that I know of, diff is that I would be open to the idea. I have read websites posted by them, as you would call, god damned dirty faggots, right? See, in RW maggotted Nazizona we have only 4% black, so we don't vary far from the ole white cowboy mentality; I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Crickets, Radioahole.

Oh, as in neutral right wing? I see. Yes, check your opinion in at the door, hate fags an embrace low taxes even tho they are the problem.

Really? History has shown that raising taxes and cutting taxes is the best way to pay down the debt, but if we can have one, it the tax increases that work the best, esp since spending can't be foreseen since disaster can happen, wars, etc.

Right and since FDR the debt has fallen twice: - 3 years during the Eisenhower years with a 91% top brkt - 1969 when taxes were briefly jumped High taxes = debt repayment since FDR. So unless you claim that SS, MEdicare, ect should be slashed, we need high taxes in order to pay down teh debt.

Woaw, a real throwback here. Thsi explains volumes; don;t ask him about gay marriage. Hey, let's see where you're at: How do you feel about the Emancipation Proclamation?

Higher taxation requires the rich to reinvest in order to write off profits and keep their value. This creates jobs, reinvestment is the positive byproduct of higher taxes; we need high taxes with generous writeoffs. Really? Hoover finally raised taxes in 1932 and recovery then began after 2.5 years of keeping taxes ultra-low and let it fix itself. Show me an example of rising taxes t fix the problem not working as you asserted. Then show me 5.

Help us out and show us the moverment that wants to make gay people = to heteros. Oh, you can't, now you understand why it's a liberal thing. Show us the conservative movement that freed blacks. Oh, you can't.