Lucky...

Right, let's not prosecute him, he meant well.

They need to pass laws to make that video illegal....oh wait, they're trying to.

And they had teh sense to realize that engagement into proxy wars meant taxes in the 80-90% range. They still wanted the proxy wars and/or MIC spending, yet they thought that they could cut taxes when the fascist pig entered office. Since then we've beeen screwed. I bet before FR the rich weren't such war-mongers, as it meant that it cost them big.

So if there are SS shortfalls, then we must say, "sorry old folks, you'll have to die,but feel assured you're helping us out and future gens as well." This isn't about personal finance where thenew boat is gonna have to wait, this is about paying for need to avoid sufferring. Unfortunatley it is also about building the most grottesque military in all of history andthere inlies the biggest problem. At teh same time, that corporate welfare scheme does produce jobs, but when we left our model as a manufacturer and started this peacetime M.I.C., cut taxes to manufacture a few millionaires and therefore many poor people who real HC. The problem is many-fold, but it has some constants and one is that regardless of spending, when taxes are as low as tehy are now, disaster is immenent. Can you show me a time where taxes are this low and economic tomes were ok? You'd have to go before WWI, so that makes it irrelevant as we had an entire different economy, different society, unless you say you wish we went back to those times, then you'd be being a Libertarian/Republican regressive. Taxes were just slightly lower in the 1920's, the financial crisis hit and no one raised taxes, no one deficit spent and we endured all kinds of sufferring until taxes were raised. I just can't see any support for your and other's argument that low taxes = good times. But still the Libertarian cult rant goes on.....tax cuts, my friends....

Remember the childhood riddle, "How much dirt is there in a hole five feet wide, four feet long, and three feet deep?" Answer: "None. It's a hole." That's a neat analogy, now show thru history how tax cuts have been beneficial. Oh, you can't. Thanks. But you still haven't shown because you can't. I'll take that as an admission that tax cuts are not beneficial.

Or...... just go away, you don't add anythign anyway. See, redneckpublicans only want to surround themselves with ideas they like, which is why they are closed-minded regressives. Projecting again? Adding nothing still?

Or...... just go away, you don't add anythign anyway. See, redneckpublicans only want to surround themselves with ideas they like, which is why they are closed-minded regressives. I think the killfile is more appropriate. Either way, any misdirection beats you having to address any issues, that's for sure.

Like you bring up GDP/Real GDP, when you were the one that changed your post while it was being replied to? Nice try, I was talking real GDP, you tried to slide in nominal to mitigate your heroes mess. To Dems, GDP makes us look good, you guys not so much; why would I need to deceive?

Why on earth do you want to keep bring up what is likely your most embarrassing thread on SC? Did it really require 4 more defensive posts that only make you look even funnier? It just says that we can continue to egg you on with it, too. I didn't, genius; can't you read? See, when you neo-cons get stuck on a given thread, they dig shit out of >6 months ago that was no big deal anyway. I'd prefer to just talk this thread, but seeing as no one has responded to my response, it is you good neo-cons who wear egg. What? Heh . . . What you'd prefer. Priceless! No, you don't really seem to have gotten the picture here have you? You just won't be taken seriously here . . . ever. Not you, not your graph, not your charts, and definately not your responses. You can't tell us you haven't figured this out yet. Give it up . . . and S.I.U.C.C. quit with the whining. Seriously. I address the issues, you run from then and *TRY* to rally the troops to support you, not your redress of the issues and you wave the victory flag. I have posted a lot of info here, care to address it keep runnin?

Well of course, do I have to list all you did as well as military, DEA, FBI, on and on...... I thought it was clear; who pays for all services? And reducing taxes to nothing allows for profit-taking and avoiding reinvestment, which stagnates teh fuck out of the situation. Of course, let's be utilitarian since the R's advocate it by their actions in some ways, then denounce it as evil in others. What makes the system work for all? High taxes and generous legitimate writeoffs. Can you historically show me times of low taxes and point to blue skies? No, I want a system that demands the rich, who are made taht way on the backs of the poor quite often, show their true patriotism they claim and be required to reinvest in the nation that made them rich. No, mine is one of reinvestment, yours is one of robber barrons sliding w/o restraint. That ancient philosophy is real neat and all, but apply it to current situations and it's mere entertainment. Way diff society then. You still can't show me a maj fed tax cut that has benefitted society. So more antiquated philosophy guiding a modern society. We already have a gov that requires compliance, we just disagree upon what is to be enforced. Ridiculous analogy. The economy is man-made, controlled in every aspect; to let it run free would make the well-off and filthy rich the emperors - your dream. They tried that, "let it fix itself" BS in teh GD and that didn't work so well and that was pre-FDR's social programs. By then the fascist pig had already hammered the top brkt from 70% to 38%, so the 1986 changes were minimal. High taxes and generous writeoffs worked thru the 40's, 50's, 60's and when taxes were lowered things went to shit, the debt started rising; it's uncanny how as the top brkts lowered, the debt reciprocally rose. Of course that data doesn't interest you. Tax revs never met outlays and most of the increasedc revs were due to gross spending. Basically Reagan did what Bush/Obama did with the bailouts/stimulus, diff is that the wheels weren't about to fall off then as tehy are now. He resorted to emergency military stimulus spending in a time when there was no emergency an created a mess. I didn't vote. Or, tax high and allow generous writeoffs. Show me where that hasn't worked. Yea, it doesn't take into account reality. Another RW theory that hasn't worked. Sorry, teh gov, depending upon who's in control, owns the rules and if the rules own your check, too bad. Yax cuts deprive the gov of revenue, therefore they are deficit-makers. If ya don't think so, show me times of low taxation where revs were high. Then show me times of high taxation where revs were low. Don;t forget to factor in outlays. Difference is that I have statistical history on my side.

I've posted data, you and your neo-cons both run from it and fail to post OBJECTIVE data to support the other side or refute mine. Until then, you look silly and lose. Well hell then, we'll only consider relevance to you, the 2nd coming. WTF does it matter who was alive? Are you fucking real? SO I guess all that hammerring about the Constipation (intentional) is meaningless because we weren't alive Where are you from????? 1) You still haven't disproven anything and using Reaganomics to support your claim is as well a bad idea. 2) I like to use all of relevant history and the biggest changes were post FDR, as tehy are much like today vs per-FDR where military and social spending were gropssly different. Either way, I posted 100 years of tax data in a general sense and you can't refute any of it whether 100 years ago or yesterday.

Why on earth do you want to keep bring up what is likely your most embarrassing thread on SC? Did it really require 4 more defensive posts that only make you look even funnier? It just says that we can continue to egg you on with it, too. I didn't, genius; can't you read? See, when you neo-cons get stuck on a given thread, they dig shit out of >6 months ago that was no big deal anyway. I'd prefer to just talk this thread, but seeing as no one has responded to my response, it is you good neo-cons who wear egg.

Considering the top 20% of wealth-holder hold 93% of all cash, when those people hold their cash the economy stagnates. You are bringing this down to a Joe Public scenario when we are irrelevant when it comes to cash holdings. Why is it you guys don't address the concept of high taxes + generous writeoffs = reinvestment = jobs? Low taxes = profit taking and stashing = stagnation and low wages due to low demand.

Remember the childhood riddle, "How much dirt is there in a hole five feet wide, four feet long, and three feet deep?" Answer: "None. It's a hole." That's a neat analogy, now show thru history how tax cuts have been beneficial. Oh, you can't.

Exactly, all other incidental factors must be considered like: - GDP - War status - Trade balance / imbalance - Debt status - Current reciepts - Current outlays - Unemployment status On and on. Historically our best years over the past 100 years have been under circumstances where the top brkt has been > 70%. I think it's only reasonable to consider post-FDR economics since the social structure was most like it will be forever and is now. IOW's, outlays pre-FDR are insanely different, hence irrelevant since military and social expenditures were relatively nothing comparatively. But it's a dynamic picture, all other contributing factors must be conseidered, however, raising taxes for the rich mandates reinvestment, that is a constant. With that said, sometimes it may be beneficial to lower taxes to reduce that element and to promote savings. Taxes are waaaaay too low, some say at 50-year lows considering all taxes. We need to raise them now, Greenspan says so, he's about as non-partisan as it gets having been appointed by Reagan, continued by Clinton and maybe others. He saw bad times and good and now is the time to incr taxes.

__________________________________________________ Then your lesser spending measn someone else isn't selling their goods, so they suffer. Not your problem, but saving stagnates the economy, spending stimulates it. Here's what conservatives refuse to accept: Cutting taxes allows the rich to pocket their money rather than being forced to reinvest it as a shelter, this stagnation cuts jobs and hurts the economy while helping the individual rich person / corporation. The more tax breaks you give to the rich, the fewer incentives they have to seek tax shelters that create employment.

Reagan's tax cuts never met outlays. Clinton's tax increases in 93 yielded IMMEDIATE results of higher receipts. GWB's tax cuts yielded IMMEDIATE loss of revs. Can you show historical tax evidence? Hell, look at Eisenhower; he left taxes at 91% top brkt and teh debt fell 3 years under his 8 years of presidency. Pls post data to show me where tax cuts lead to higher receipts.

Or, from the same thread, Belgian saying Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1945: Rather Belgian said Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1945, Belgian didn't say Japan wasn't attacked in 45. BELGIAN: Is that the best you can do? Dig up a typo? SO we can revisit all the old issues and it seems teh RW is good at that when cornered, or they could actually stick with the thread topic: Five Myths About the GOP(that won't die) Shall we go back or is my response to much to reply to?

Gov sources, BEA, BLS, IRS, Etc. Wikipedia is objective and I have never found it to be errant, but that isn't a bad source either. And the Onion. Don't forget the Onion. You used in one of your rants once and called it "real and legit" and a "right wing rag" Lucky, how do you feel about the reporting on MSNBC? I asked, in passing if it was legit, but go ahead and keep misquoting I quoted what you said. You called it "real and legit" and referred to it as an RW rag. I will look up the old thread if you would like? Don't confuse him with evidence and fact . . it makes his head spinn and go all fuzzy and stuff. The closest I wrote was: I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. So it was satire from a what I thought was a real RW site. Now, my lack of familiarity with the Onion then has no bearing on the myths, just as your crony hwt thinking MSNBCBS was a real media outlet, but rather than addressing my comments, you reach for something immaterial. Perhaps next you can point out typing errors once you run this course. Or perhaps you could address the topic matter that I replied to. But no, you are unable to so you drag up a non-issue from > 6 montsh ago. You're like my GF bringing up that girl I fucked 15 years ago; neither of you have an answer the current issue, just thinking that misdirection will work. Oh, be sure and point out that hwt thinks MSNBCBS is a real media outlet.

Gov sources, BEA, BLS, IRS, Etc. Wikipedia is objective and I have never found it to be errant, but that isn't a bad source either. And the Onion. Don't forget the Onion. You used in one of your rants once and called it "real and legit" and a "right wing rag" Lucky, how do you feel about the reporting on MSNBC? I asked, in passing if it was legit, but go ahead and keep misquoting I quoted what you said. You called it "real and legit" and referred to it as an RW rag. I will look up the old thread if you would like? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3728265;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; IS THIS FUCKING LEGIT? Lie much? Now go and tell us about hwt thinking MSNBCBS is real. Oh that's right, the RW crony handbook says that the truth is just an obstacle, never go against a brother. YOU'RE WRONG, I ASKED NOT STATED. Typical misquotes tho.

Wasn't it designed to unass the southern states from continuing slavery? The E.P. and teh 13th prohibited it, but the southerners said that was a fed document and as long as tehy didn't cross state lines or make it federal they didn't have to comply. That *might* be ok as long as it didn't infringe on other rights. But the 14th is still extremely viable as it ensures equal protection in far more areas than immigration.

Gov sources, BEA, BLS, IRS, Etc. Wikipedia is objective and I have never found it to be errant, but that isn't a bad source either. And the Onion. Don't forget the Onion. You used in one of your rants once and called it "real and legit" and a "right wing rag" Lucky, how do you feel about the reporting on MSNBC? I asked, in passing if it was legit, but go ahead and keep misquoting and don't comment on my issues, it would actually take concentration. Oh and tellus about Reagan, the only 7-year president in history.

__________________________________________________ I earn x amount of money a month and if i spend less money a month would i have more money to put in the bank every month? answer: Damn right i would.. Here are the facts liberals fail to understand.... the more you tax , the less incentive a person has to earn more. the more you give to the poor , the less incentive they have to get a job. When the gov spends money, it stimulates the economy, when the gov gives teh very rich tax breaks, it often sits and stagnates at the will of the rich. Now you may not find this fair, but you can have fair and fucked or unfair and workable. You know how the military did a lot of things that seemed unfair? Well, they alsoi worked. High taxes might be utilitarian in your mind, but they are also what makes the economy work, refute my 100-year graph or concede.

Then why are you not addressing my graph that shows 100 years of taxes as far as the top marginal brkt for income tax? The mode is virtually always rendering a conclusion that low taxes lead to hell, our best times were under higher taxes. You can disagree with the theory, you can't refute the data, which is why you don't and you just ignore it.

Define your terms, specifically "coffers." Who's "coffers" are you talking about? The overall economy, the pockets of defense contractors and the people that work for them or just the government itself? That's part of the issue. If the US government reduced spending on defense, it would see an enormous benefit in terms of deficit reduction. Unfortunately, many defense companies would stop manufacturing as much meaning they would need to reduce labor, which in turn also means lower tax revenues. If the government cut back on ALL farming subsidies, they'd also see a huge reduction in debt. However, farmers would charge more for produce and food prices around the country would skyrocket. That might be a good thing for some, but not for others. The basic problem is that over the decades we've become far too reliant on the relationship between government and business. Corporate welfare is a much, MUCH bigger issue than welfare for the poor. Like Bail Outs? It's great to chide teh bailouts, but as long as we live in that vacuum where we ignore teh cost of not bailing out, as in the GD, we can be blissful. What did doing nothing cost us in 1929? We don't totally know, but much suffering and delay. Fortunately our leaders learned from that. Unfortunately many of the conservatives can't understand and decipher history's message that it just won't fix itself.