Lucky...

Probably when the morons quit thinking that more spending is the cure for all of our problems. Well, the same morons who cut taxes are teh ones who do the massive spending. So we're talking about the same morons here; Reagan and GWB and all their faithful.

Bill has been notified, have a good one. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa See posts #10 and #15 of this thread. It does seem to be her style. I know people who have been banned for less. Yeah, I've been given a time-out for far less. I was just amused at the irony of lucky whining about somebody having the balls to come right out and say what they mean instead of just dancing around it by formulating group insults that are obviously aimed at a particular person. Balls. Some gots 'em, some don't. Most have come out and told others to fuck themselves, I don't think it takes balls. And we all deliver light veiled insults, of course you, you're special.

It's not, it can be anything he wants, hence the, "Other." I know, real hard to understand. You can run like he did, it speaks volumes. did you read my second sentence? "I'd say his answer was other" yes I noticed the option. I commented on it. you clearly didn't read my last sentence "get off your horse" as you're stuck to the "you don't agree with me, so you're stupid" attitude. I kept my earlier reply short so you might have the attention span to read & comprehend the whole thing. clearly that approach didn't work. So you guessed why he ran from the question and then dropped an insult as a smokescreen to your running exit; WE ALL SAW THAT.

This was an entry in another thread, I think it deserves a life of its own. Uncanny the comparison to tax policy between Harding/Coolige and Reagan. As I said, disaster was realized as Reagan cut taxes, it's just that during Reagan he diverged by gross deficit spending for the first time while not at war. Here comes the Cold War comments; hardly a war, just a political pissing match. Hell, the bay of pigs was more a war than was the upturning of the political pissing between the USSR and the US. Here's a graph that is really illustrative. Look at the top marginal brkt from Harding/Coolige and then compare it to Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States Gpaph at the bottom right side. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg/500px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg.png (may or may not work, just go to the parent site, the first one) Amazingling almost identical. 1922-1925 1981-1986 The step is larger with Reagan's, but the starting and stopping point are virtually carbon copy. The results, well similar but in a different way. In the 1920's they didn't believe in deficit spending, so they suffered and waited for the economy to come around. Reagan believed in deficit spending so his good deeds weren't really noticed until after his death or at least his mind left us. If Reagan didn't deficit spend as he did, I think we would have been in a depression by the end of his illustrious 2nd term. Rhetorically, when will the morons quit thinking that cutting taxes to shreds is a good idea?

Bill has been notified, have a good one. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa See posts #10 and #15 of this thread. It does seem to be her style. I know people who have been banned for less. Yeah.. odd how that did not warrent a banning... I've gotta think Bill hasn't seen it yet.

It's not, it can be anything he wants, hence the, "Other." I know, real hard to understand. You can run like he did, it speaks volumes.

Right, they meant to not cut any corporate welfare tho.

Republicans, unemp issues, taxation is an element of that as either or both taxes pay for unemp / deficit spending does. Totally relevant. Here's a list of questions you must have accidentally missed: So no answer to the tax cut position? At the present: - Are you for tax cuts - For tax increases - No change to the tax code - Other Are tax increases ever beneficial? If so, when have they been? Are tax cuts beneficial? If so, when have they been? So to answer your guarded reply: So eliminate the income tax system I think you were trying to say and shift all taxes to consumption. Yea, many people have suggested this and on teh surface it sounds good, but remember, society is guided via our tax system, so that would dissuade buying/spending and promote all other things. This is the rub, the economy needs to run with all elements and no need to hire if consumption is down. We need a distributed tax process, even if it becomes very complicated. It would be noce to think we could simplify the process, but it really need to be universal, in evry aspect of our lives to avoid eliminating some areas and flooding others. To have great economic activity we need high taxes followed by generous writeoffs. This keeps the economic activity high, if we need to slow it to avoid inflation we can merely raise the int rate, which in turn appreciates our dollar value. That is a one-way street, we can't lower rates enough to always motivate economic activity, GWB found that to be true as he lowered taxes, economy stagnated, he and the fed had to keep cutting rates to try to motivate the economy, the unexpected result was that house values skyrocketed as a home's value relies on 2 main elements: - Principal - Interest They react inversely to each other. Once they gave the monster life, it had to run its course. Never has anything good happened when we've run the top marginal brkt has gone below 70%, let alone 50% 30%, etc. Yet why all the ideologues run for low taxes is just retarded. They can't provide evidence that it has ever been beneficial let alone constantly beneficial yet they clammer their lockstepped chant of, "Tax cuts, my friends" forever, despite a mountain of 90 years of evidence showing a constant trend of low taxes = fucked economy. Let's raise teh top margina brkt > 50% and keep the writeoffs so the rich can stay in the game rather than pull their cash and get a free ride, stagnating the economy in the name of, "fairness."

Bill has been notified, have a good one. A little thin skinned there? ooh the big bad man from the internet insulted me - let me run to the nearest moderator and tattle. What a joke! Right, if I let the woman light me off, I get booted. The joke is that you want the double standard. Don't worry, substantive issues are for those here to debate; move along.

Here's a graph that is really illustrative. Look at the top marginal brkt from Harding/Coolige and then compare it to Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg Amazingling almost identical. 1922-1925 1981-1986 The step is larger with Reagan's, but the starting and stopping point are virtually carbon copy. The results, well similar but in a different way. In the 1920's they didn't believe in deficit spending, so they suffered and waited for the economy to come around. Reagan believed in deficit spending so his good deeds weren't really noticed until after his death or at least his mind left us. If Reagan didn't deficit spend as he did, I think we would have been in a depression by the end of his illustrious 2nd term. Rhetorically, when will the morons quit thinking that cutting taxes to shreds is a good idea?

I think someone needs a 12 step program when one is in that much denial. Maybe some day you will come to terms with how butt hurt you were over the people you supported when they let you down so completely and utterly. In reality it was Reagan's fault. The Harding/Coolige duo of crooks cut the top brkt from 73% to 25% over 4 years as the first radical tax cuts the US had seen. The result, coupled with a crooked Wall Street was the Great Depression. Hoover figured it would just fix itself and did nothing for the 1st 2.5 years, then restored the top brkt to 63% 9 months before he exited office. Reagan should have been aware enough not to repeat history, yet he was too senile and crooked so he couldn't help himself and lowered taxes from 70% to 28% over 6 years, an almost identical repeat of the other corrupt Republicans, Harding and Coolige. See, Reagan had the advantage of history, but he ignored it or was too senile to understand. GWB, even tho he lowered taxes only 5%, when we get below 40% we have always had disaster since WWI. This country was great when taxes were teh highest, at least > 50%. What high taxes, coupled with generous writeoffs do is to mandate reinvestment, low taxes allow for taking money out of the game, stagnating (recessing) the economy. A full-on Socialist would want high taxes with little writeoffs, I want both high taxes and generous writeoffs to allow for prosperity and continued economic growth vs gross disparity in wealth as is present under low taxes / generous writeoffs. So my point is that as pathetic as GWB is/was, it really is Reagan's fault.

So no answer to the tax cut position? At the present: - Are you for tax cuts - For tax increases - No change to the tax code - Other Are tax increases ever beneficial? If so, when have they been? Are tax cuts beneficial? If so, when have they been? This should warrant some kind of squirming or, if you're smart, just keep runnin.

Well, it's not as a process server or some other faux legal job. You're in fine form today, whining to Bill about attacks while calling us Circle K clerks. Grow a pair already. Nice strawman, saying, "...you are too pathetic and useless to take care of yourself." Is the same as claiming someone must be a Cirkle K clerk. But at least you and yours don't have to dream up an excuse for tax cuts being damaging to the economy; a ridiculous claim made by the same. I've never claimed to be a legal professional, just an acft mech professional. Not sure how you drempt that up, perhaps too much time on the Ouija board.

Your point: Cut spending - do I need to go cut-n-paste where I stated that's a good idea? I did address it and will address any point you have, juts post it. My point: Are tax cuts good? You didn't touch it and won't, then strawman to make it appear that I didn't address yours. Post any questions you have - I'll answer, but answer mine.

You didn't and you refuse to. It's grossly implied that tax cuts are teh answer, you won't assert that because it would be easy to slam that. We know wht you mean tho, tax cuts, my friends; just like your Republican hero. Yep, Clinton's plan worker well, chop military spending, increase taxes and open some social programs, or were teh Clinton years economically bad? I'm teh pro-Clinton guy here, you are not. Clinton raised taxes and cut spending from previous presidents; that's the model I advocate, you don't have teh courage to claim that tax cuts are needed too, even tho that's what you mean.

My experiences are that given the choice, virtually all Libertarians run to the Republican Party, Ron Paul is an outstanding and prominent examp,e of this. So, Libertarian, other than trickle-down theory, show me historical examples of where tax cuts have helped. I have to ask this question more in a rhetorical sense than anything. Of course it elicits no intelligent response from respondents as there is no possible answer and is therefore rhetorical. SHOW ME A FUCKING MAJOR FED TAX CUT THAT HAS LED TO OVERALL BETTERMENT FOR THE ECONOMY.

Yea, I wonder if we will look back to the Reagan era and the GWB era and think: You know, those tax cuts and grotesque spending really stuck us in a hole. If it werenot for GHWB and esp Clinton having the guts to raise taxes we could actually be worse off. Hmmmm, I think I'll go vote for the politician that will cut taxes, even tho only a moron would think that will help, as it never has, but it sounds good. Yea, amazing that you guys didn't have such a cut-spending agenda as your turd was in office. Also, not so amazing that you guys won't acknowledge that tax cuts only exacerbate a bad economy, even Hoover was smart enough to finally understand that, it seems the R's have dumbed down from then.

It's hard to extrapolate the exact meaning of this rant, so I'll generalize it to be obviously anti-dem/socialist. Now actually strike an argument for capitalism and against socialism, better yet, quasi-Socialism. Use historical examples of why quasi-Socialism, as with Canada is inneffective and how capitalism has worked well. I'm not expecting a cogent response here.

Yea, those are 1980's dollars, but taking a stable debt and cutting taxes to virtually a third of where you inherited them, probably doubling or more spending is ageless and timeless; it translates to any time in history. I'm not aware of that promise to people who gross 200-250k/yr. Regardless, whenever taxes increase, on a major fed level, the economic picture improves and you have yet to disprove that. They have been for 40 or 50 years, so what's your point. Obama imposed a tarrifff on Chinese tires and was crucuifed. Can't win. You opinion, probably the same when Clinton took office. Your theories and opinions are as relevant now as they were then, huh?

This makes no sense, it's the libs who post sources and talk your ears off. Look at Mike, you can hardly pry a source out of him.

Yep, rich people. That be the rich people that pay a HIGHER part of the tax burden under the Bush cuts, correct? Yep, the rich pay virtually sll taxes regardless. Wait, they hold almost all teh money too; go figure. So, you want Barry to *raise* taxes, which will increase the number of people from the LOW end of the spectrum that have to pay taxes and have the comcommitant effect of shifting the tax burden more toward the lower end. Sounds like your usual logic - heck of a plan! Raising top taxable income rarely if even affects teh lower end and if it does it's minimal. The revs collected more than make up for it. Back to your regularly scheduled argument for the rich.

As the guy who has seen more bubbles, and likely pays more taxes than you gross, yeah, that's what I think. But what can I expect from a Perot voter, anyhow? Ahhh, if true, so sorry your taxes are going up What bubbles have you seen, the ones in your champagne? Love how you disclose your career field or any other aspect; must be proud.

I'm attacking the source as EXTREMELY biased. You think we can consider a Libertaian as an objective source? I guess you can't debate then, as it requires using a reasonable source to all. We must agree that the Libertarian model is the standard ion order to buy your (or whomevers it was) source and platform. You didn't even qualify the source as a Libertarian so we could place his opinions in context, just as a noted economist or something of the sort. Try honesty, it's more fun. I see, you're a garden variety name-dropper. Here's a dose of your own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman Paul Robin Krugman (pronounced /ˈkruːɡmən/;[3] born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, columnist and author. He is Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[4][5] In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. He was voted sixth in a 2005 global poll of the world's top 100 intellectuals by Prospect.[6] This guy's resume is even more impressive than your sociopath's, so I must be right, right? Being accomplished doesn't make a person right in their opinions. You righties are soooo funny, you latch onto a dead fish and expect to ride it to the deep ocean. Nope, distributing wealth so we have more in the middle, fewer on the extremes. Just not well, now ignore my source as you will. Oh, and while you're at it, ignore this for teh 2nd time: -- Then explain how Reagan tripled the 900B debt he inherited. A debt that wasn't escalating. Explain how GWB doubled the 5.5T debt he inherited from a strong economy. Both Clinton and esp Obama inherited sick economies and Clinton fixed his, Obama has made major steps in healing his. Explain your inane claim that the R's want to avoid running the deficit (you probably meant debt) so high that we cannot recover when it is the R's responsibel for most of the debt and for virtually all of the leaving a mess of an economy. -- Yes I do, that's why I want to chop the military. -- And you would shit all over the place if I posted the words of a social liberal. Nice source, really drove home your argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Miron [url]

No, being gainfully employed requires at least breaking even. And if you get locked into a job you cannot search for gainful employment. I get it, unless it's you, others can just take min wage jobs. Yes and collecting unemp comp is what I would do until a descent opportunity opened up or pergaps consider retraining. To make your life better you must find real employment where you can save, invest and plan for the future. Well then, I bet many, many Republicans collect unemp comp and turn down jobs under their threshold. Of course they have a rationalization for it. Kinda like all those Republican socialists collecting Socialism Security, Medicare, etc. Not really, we must assume that Republicans don't collecct social welfare, or atleast they are willing to wash cars and scrub floors to get off it, and I know several who wait for the best job to come along before letting go of the welfare nipple. And you didn't address this: And many jobs requiring a security clearance require you disclose everything honestly, a starnger to Republicans (honesty). No response? Hmm, I guess you can't play the game for shit.

Bill has been notified, have a good one.