A sign of "change?" - Page 3 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: A sign of "change?"
Sunday, August 23, 2009 2:00 PM on j-body.org
mitdr774 wrote:

How many of those homes are being sold at a huge loss to prevent foreclosure? Around me homes are selling for up to a 1/4 of their assesed value because people just want to avoid a foreclosure on their record.

Also things are turning around and so much better that I just got laid off again due to.......you guessed it "reduction in workforce" due to a lack of work. there is not @!#$ happening around me that is not directly supported in some way by the federal government.

Mi. unemployment rate went up again. We are now at 15.6% (as of Julys numbers) and many like me will probably not factor into that list as I no longer qualify for unemployment.

I can see that some like to pick and choose what we like, but that is the free-market capitalism, boom-bust whatever the price, the market dictates.
Sorry for your loss over in MI, but being that states was heavily employed by the US auto industry, what can you expect? Don't you just hate mis-management with no future sight? You're living through that aspect.

Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:



As the C.A.R.S. program is cut short, watch what happens to auto sales in the next couple of months. Also, as you drive to work every day (if you are not unemployed), keep an eye out for those small use car dealers. You know the ones: a small lot, usually no more than a few dozen cars on the lot, maybe a 2 bay garage and a 2 desk office. See if any of them are out of business. Chances are, everyone here will be able to find one without looking hard. Many of them have been on the virge of collapse for months because of the recession, and one month of a major cut in business due to the C.A.R.S. program will be the final straw.


Being that left over 2007, 2008 (due to bad economy could not sell them), 2009 are going to be gone and new 2010 arriving. Don't expect to many discounts on them to sell them quicker, so yes sales of cars may go lower. But sorry to inform you, but thats how car industry works. Who knows if they will change such practice.
Lastly, since when do you care for the little people, in this case small car lots? And your view on them closing is an extreme and stupid outlook, especially when what you're writing as if you're ignorant on the type of cars being picked up for clunkers. And with cars being picked up, demand for them is not there, and with no/low demand those small dealers are not dumb enough go pick up vehicles that market does not want

Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Orlandomon wrote:

btw, we all know the only real way to fix out deficit is to RAISE taxes.

Wrong. It has been proven more than once that lowering taxes, by stimulating economic activity, actually raises revenue, because taxes are taken out of a bigger economy. When you raise taxes, you shrink the economy

An example of when you don't know history.
US 20th century history has an opposite outlook yours Greedy Monopolistic Pig.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.


Re: A sign of "change?"
Sunday, August 23, 2009 2:11 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Lastly, since when do you care for the little people, in this case small car lots?

An example of you making a foolish assumption and being wrong, hence your conclusions are wrong.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

And your view on them closing is an extreme and stupid outlook, especially when what you're writing as if you're ignorant on the type of cars being picked up for clunkers. And with cars being picked up, demand for them is not there, and with no/low demand those small dealers are not dumb enough go pick up vehicles that market does not want

It's not a matter of the cars, it's a matter of the fact that the C4C program is for new car sales only. You miss the most obvious details on a regular basis, all because you've got such a hard-on for another chance to take a stab at me. Once again, you've missed the mark.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Orlandomon wrote:

btw, we all know the only real way to fix out deficit is to RAISE taxes.

Wrong. It has been proven more than once that lowering taxes, by stimulating economic activity, actually raises revenue, because taxes are taken out of a bigger economy. When you raise taxes, you shrink the economy

An example of when you don't know history.
US 20th century history has an opposite outlook yours Greedy Monopolistic Pig.

Oh really? I've posted the statistics in more than one thread in this forum showing the revenue increases.

Lastly, this is yet another example of your failure to offer a legitimate argument with substance. Just a weak personal attack.

Thanks for the chuckle.






Re: A sign of "change?"
Sunday, August 23, 2009 7:44 PM on j-body.org
I dont work for the auto industry. In fact the last two jobs I was on were both commercial jobs. Nobody wants to invest in new building because the businesses are still not buying into the whole turn around. Mi. has been @!#$ for quite a while but we are not being helped at all by the new environmental standards or many of the other regulations that keep being imposed.



Re: A sign of "change?"
Sunday, August 23, 2009 9:19 PM on j-body.org
Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Lastly, since when do you care for the little people, in this case small car lots?

An example of you making a foolish assumption and being wrong, hence your conclusions are wrong.

already.

Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

And your view on them closing is an extreme and stupid outlook, especially when what you're writing as if you're ignorant on the type of cars being picked up for clunkers. And with cars being picked up, demand for them is not there, and with no/low demand those small dealers are not dumb enough go pick up vehicles that market does not want

It's not a matter of the cars, it's a matter of the fact that the C4C program is for new car sales only. You miss the most obvious details on a regular basis, all because you've got such a hard-on for another chance to take a stab at me. Once again, you've missed the mark.

Looks like you've missed the point. C4C will have a very little to almost no impact on small dealers. If anything, it is the junkyards that will loose out the most as the big ticket items like the engine as they are destroyed, but that is not to say other parts won't can't be sold.

Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Orlandomon wrote:

btw, we all know the only real way to fix out deficit is to RAISE taxes.

Wrong. It has been proven more than once that lowering taxes, by stimulating economic activity, actually raises revenue, because taxes are taken out of a bigger economy. When you raise taxes, you shrink the economy

An example of when you don't know history.
US 20th century history has an opposite outlook yours Greedy Monopolistic Pig.

Oh really? I've posted the statistics in more than one thread in this forum showing the revenue increases.

Lastly, this is yet another example of your failure to offer a legitimate argument with substance. Just a weak personal attack.

Thanks for the chuckle.


Well look at the the tax rates here. From 1913-2009:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
During the strong and powerful haydays of this country the upper most category were being taxed at a rate 65-91%
Now take note when Reagan lowered taxes in 1982 from 70% to 50% national unemployment still kept going up to near 11%, it wasn't until Reagan went and spent an insane amount of money in arms and technology in 1983 then there trend started lowering by 1984. Furthermore the prosperous 90's taxes went up slight up. By 2002 taxes started to get lowered even to today to a low 35% and look what was the end result for these past years.


mitdr774 wrote:

I dont work for the auto industry. In fact the last two jobs I was on were both commercial jobs. Nobody wants to invest in new building because the businesses are still not buying into the whole turn around. Mi. has been @!#$ for quite a while but we are not being helped at all by the new environmental standards or many of the other regulations that keep being imposed.

Although you didn't work the industry, it will eventually hurt everyone in the vicinity, and from what you tell me, you're an example of it.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: A sign of "change?"
Monday, August 24, 2009 4:22 AM on j-body.org
That C.A.R.S. thing was a @!#$ joke....


Last week I blew up 90 cars... the Honestly I would call 4 of them "clunkers" other cars,.... had A LOT of life left in them. most were 98 or newer SUV's Or Minie Vans..(even a 2006 SAP GTO... strange right?)

Wonder when some one is going to bitch about all the wast, and what about the coolant and oil still in the cars....


But, we did need something tangible to pay china back..... something osoma cant print, ya know.


guvment.... fuc-ked up yet another thing...

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: A sign of "change?"
Monday, August 24, 2009 2:45 PM on j-body.org
"Well look at the the tax rates here. From 1913-2009:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
During the strong and powerful haydays of this country the upper most category were being taxed at a rate 65-91%
Now take note when Reagan lowered taxes in 1982 from 70% to 50% national unemployment still kept going up to near 11%, it wasn't until Reagan went and spent an insane amount of money in arms and technology in 1983 then there trend started lowering by 1984. Furthermore the prosperous 90's taxes went up slight up. By 2002 taxes started to get lowered even to today to a low 35% and look what was the end result for these past years. "





so your saying reagan lowered taxes in 82 and that unemployment didnt go down until 1983 and 84? um you do realise that changes like that dont happen over night, he doesnt sign a bill and snap his fingers and poof unemployment is lowered. it takes time. a year or two at the minimum to see any real effect in something like that.


as for 02 we have discussed several times about what has caused the issues that were in right now and dont even think lowered taxes made it on the list.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: A sign of "change?"
Monday, August 24, 2009 7:58 PM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:

"Well look at the the tax rates here. From 1913-2009:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
During the strong and powerful haydays of this country the upper most category were being taxed at a rate 65-91%
Now take note when Reagan lowered taxes in 1982 from 70% to 50% national unemployment still kept going up to near 11%, it wasn't until Reagan went and spent an insane amount of money in arms and technology in 1983 then there trend started lowering by 1984. Furthermore the prosperous 90's taxes went up slight up. By 2002 taxes started to get lowered even to today to a low 35% and look what was the end result for these past years. "





so your saying reagan lowered taxes in 82 and that unemployment didnt go down until 1983 and 84? um you do realise that changes like that dont happen over night, he doesnt sign a bill and snap his fingers and poof unemployment is lowered. it takes time. a year or two at the minimum to see any real effect in something like that.


as for 02 we have discussed several times about what has caused the issues that were in right now and dont even think lowered taxes made it on the list.

Well to be exact Reagan signed the 30% tax reduction for upper most category on Feb 1981 and a couple of weeks after he was sworn in and took effect promptly. Since his approval rating was at 31% (mostly because of high unemployment) in 1983 he imposed a 1984 budget increase in defense and technology spending, unemployment started to go slightly down trend by 1984.

As for the 02 to today low tax rate, and as much as you all like to say the answer to fix the economy is to do as such, well it was done in 2000 39.6% to 2003 at 35% which was also found through out the last 6 years on the upper most category. That lower tax drop really help us all out didn't it.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: A sign of "change?"
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 4:55 AM on j-body.org
again, stuff like this doesnt happen overnight. so your trying to get us to buy the fact that the budget increased in 84 and poof unemployment dropped so it must have been the budget increase on defense spending, when it was more likley something that happened way earlier.

its jus tlike obamas stimulus pland or whatever you want to call it where they are doling out billions on road projects and school building and such. its allready in effect but it doesnt happen overnight. my industry wouldnt likely see any effect at all for another year.

none of this stuff happens overnight. not to mention the econemy and the way the world works has so many variables you can't just assume one bill passed made all the diffrence in one thing or another. it would be like saying well i had a birthday the same day some bill was signed. so everyone must have been overjoyed about my birthday and went out and bought allot of presents which stimulated the econemy which caused busisnness to increase production and hire more employees lowering the unemployment rate the next week.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: A sign of "change?"
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 5:19 AM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Well to be exact Reagan signed the 30% tax reduction for upper most category on Feb 1981 and a couple of weeks after he was sworn in and took effect promptly. Since his approval rating was at 31% (mostly because of high unemployment) in 1983 he imposed a 1984 budget increase in defense and technology spending, unemployment started to go slightly down trend by 1984.

Ahhh, more incorrectly drawn conclusions. Something that is becoming a staple in your posts.

The peak unemployment came in November of 82, and began a near decade of continuous decline in January of 83, not a "slight down trend by 84".

Here is a chart of the 80s unemployment, derived from this data.



Note the steep decline slope that ends in early 84. No matter how many times you make this argument, the facts remain the same, and they are irrefutable.



Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

As for the 02 to today low tax rate, and as much as you all like to say the answer to fix the economy is to do as such, well it was done in 2000 39.6% to 2003 at 35% which was also found through out the last 6 years on the upper most category. That lower tax drop really help us all out didn't it.

I've posted this article before, too. Maybe this time you should try reading it and attempting to understand the numbers in it.

Also, as I will remind you, yet again, that the Bush tax cuts included major increases in deductions, which primarily affected the lower brackets. This also had the effect of lowering everyone's taxes, due to the fact that the taxable income brackets were pushed up.

When will you get that the rate is not the only thing that can be changed? Reagan did the same thing, but you keep pointing to the cuts that the top rate got. Pure class warfare tactics.






Re: A sign of "change?"
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 11:33 AM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:

again, stuff like this doesnt happen overnight. so your trying to get us to buy the fact that the budget increased in 84 and poof unemployment dropped so it must have been the budget increase on defense spending, when it was more likley something that happened way earlier.

its jus tlike obamas stimulus pland or whatever you want to call it where they are doling out billions on road projects and school building and such. its allready in effect but it doesnt happen overnight. my industry wouldnt likely see any effect at all for another year.

none of this stuff happens overnight. not to mention the econemy and the way the world works has so many variables you can't just assume one bill passed made all the diffrence in one thing or another. it would be like saying well i had a birthday the same day some bill was signed. so everyone must have been overjoyed about my birthday and went out and bought allot of presents which stimulated the econemy which caused busisnness to increase production and hire more employees lowering the unemployment rate the next week.


I understand that it doesn't happen over night (infact I'm the one telling you all of that today like in this thread and if you've read what I posted before) like in boom-bust periods and much how the slight unemployment trend is arising today instantly, that's what happened in 1983, it accelerated when instant money was thrown/invested as stated above in 1984. That is instant employment openings, not like on tax cuts that you have to wait or more like assume that "wanted" signs will pop because of "more money is on the hands of the employer" BS. Simple business/capitalism aspect, no demand no new employment no matter how much you want to cut taxes.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: A sign of "change?"
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 1:06 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

I understand that it doesn't happen over night (infact I'm the one telling you all of that today like in this thread and if you've read what I posted before) like in boom-bust periods and much how the slight unemployment trend is arising today instantly, that's what happened in 1983, it accelerated when instant money was thrown/invested as stated above in 1984. That is instant employment openings, not like on tax cuts that you have to wait or more like assume that "wanted" signs will pop because of "more money is on the hands of the employer" BS. Simple business/capitalism aspect, no demand no new employment no matter how much you want to cut taxes.

No, it was not.

Seriously, do you pride yourself on the number of statistics you can ignore or argue over per subject?

Look at the data (which by the way, you used that exact source link in another arguement) I posted right above you. The biggest drop was prior to that spending. You can argue all you want that it was the spending, but the largest drop in a short period of time of unemployment was after tax cuts, and before the spending you keep claiming was the real stimulant. You're premise is quite simply blown out of the water when you compare it to the facts.







Re: A sign of "change?"
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 3:35 PM on j-body.org
By the way, I wanted to mention this, as I forgot to post this before, with regards to the false hope being reported in the media:

The last two months the size of the workforce which unemployment is measured against decreased. This is why June only showed a slight increase in unemployment, and July showed a drop. The reason is when people stop looking for work, and/or run out of unemployment benefits, they are no longer counted in the workforce.

Here is a screen shot of the spreadsheet numbers from taken from this data:



These are thousands, so add three zeros to each number and you'll get the true number.

Note that, while the percentage of unemployment reported in July dropped by .1, the number of people employed still dropped by 227,000. However, the number of reported people in the workforce dropped by 422,000. This is why they reported the drop in unemployment rate. The true unemployment has not dropped.






Re: A sign of "change?"
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:12 AM on j-body.org
There have been more positive turns In the economy as of the last month or so. THERE is no denying that. AND climbing out of the WORST recession in over 70 years will take time, as in 2 to 3 years. NOT 6 months. DO you honestly beleive that if McCain was in office we would be out of this mess by now ? What if the situation was worse ?



My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
Re: A sign of "change?"
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:32 AM on j-body.org
Short Hand wrote:

There have been more positive turns In the economy as of the last month or so. THERE is no denying that. AND climbing out of the WORST recession in over 70 years will take time, as in 2 to 3 years. NOT 6 months. DO you honestly beleive that if McCain was in office we would be out of this mess by now ? What if the situation was worse ?



thanks for backing up our point. whenever any change is made it doesnt happen overnight. it can take a year or more just to get hold and really make an impact. and no one was saying that with mccain it would be out of this mess. (unless it was brought up early in the post and i missed it)



and yes there have been some positives. but they are claiming the unemployment rate was a positive which at this point really isnt.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: A sign of "change?"
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 10:31 AM on j-body.org
^And (if) unemployement starts to slightly go down in the coming months, what excuse are you all going to say next?
If I recall nobody said we are in prosperity. Looks like if Obama was not in office, then the retliation of "this is not good news" BS you all give would not persist. We get it.
Personally, I don't give a flying F-uck whose in office, if news like this arise (slowing of the downfall) I would welcome it, why? Because that means where I am at, companies can start buying our services again.

Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

I understand that it doesn't happen over night (infact I'm the one telling you all of that today like in this thread and if you've read what I posted before) like in boom-bust periods and much how the slight unemployment trend is arising today instantly, that's what happened in 1983, it accelerated when instant money was thrown/invested as stated above in 1984. That is instant employment openings, not like on tax cuts that you have to wait or more like assume that "wanted" signs will pop because of "more money is on the hands of the employer" BS. Simple business/capitalism aspect, no demand no new employment no matter how much you want to cut taxes.

No, it was not.

Seriously, do you pride yourself on the number of statistics you can ignore or argue over per subject?

Look at the data (which by the way, you used that exact source link in another arguement) I posted right above you. The biggest drop was prior to that spending. You can argue all you want that it was the spending, but the largest drop in a short period of time of unemployment was after tax cuts, and before the spending you keep claiming was the real stimulant. You're premise is quite simply blown out of the water when you compare it to the facts.

Tax cut done in Feb-1981, unemployment still rises. Jan/1983 Reagan places spending on defense and technology. March Reagan Space Defense Initiative (SDI) and called upon the scientific community. Unemployment slowed by mid to late 1983 and by1984 it went onward down as the instant jobs created in technology let loose a unemployment downfall as technology was the way of the future and employed many. Like it or not tax cuts didn't carry out what you say.

Oh and you know that part that you avoided up there that high taxes screws up the economy.
Like I said before, US 20th History also proves your theory again wrong. When the upper most were taxed from 70% as high as 91-94% tax rate in the mid 20th century (the heydays) unemployment was as low as 2.9% and averaged to low 4.0%. I encourage you to look it up and get and remove your ignorance, before you start flapping your mouth that cutting taxes is the only sure way to run the economy, as if it’s gospel.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: A sign of "change?"
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 11:09 AM on j-body.org
^And (if) unemployement starts to slightly go down in the coming months, what excuse are you all going to say next?
If I recall nobody said we are in prosperity. Looks like if Obama was not in office, then the retliation of "this is not good news" BS you all give would not persist. We get it.
Personally, I don't give a flying F-uck whose in office, if news like this arise (slowing of the downfall) I would welcome it, why? Because that means where I am at, companies can start buying our services again.





excuses? i hope to hell it does come down.i dont like seeing my friends out of work.what were saying is if news like this arises it should be accurate and not just skewing the data to get the results you want.




as for the whole tax cut /war spending, you stil just like to believe that these bills and tax cuts take effect and have dramatic results the day they are signed in. if you believe that is the way it is theres no point debating that point anymore.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: A sign of
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 2:14 PM on j-body.org
Short Hand wrote:

There have been more positive turns In the economy as of the last month or so. THERE is no denying that. AND climbing out of the WORST recession in over 70 years will take time, as in 2 to 3 years. NOT 6 months. DO you honestly beleive that if McCain was in office we would be out of this mess by now ? What if the situation was worse ?

You are missing the point. The media, and the Whitehouse, are pushing false hope. This is just a slight lull, but we are going to get another slope. We haven't even come close to seeing the worst of it yet, especially if the liberals get their way. My point, in case you've missed it in each instance that I've pointed it out, is that they want to do more to damage our situation, and that's exactly what I want to see stopped.

If McCain were in, I know we wouldn't be out of it by now, but he wouldn't be doing such things to make it worse and take advantage of it to push socialism on us.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

^And (if) unemployement starts to slightly go down in the coming months, what excuse are you all going to say next?
If I recall nobody said we are in prosperity. Looks like if Obama was not in office, then the retliation of "this is not good news" BS you all give would not persist. We get it.
Personally, I don't give a flying F-uck whose in office, if news like this arise (slowing of the downfall) I would welcome it, why? Because that means where I am at, companies can start buying our services again.

Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

I understand that it doesn't happen over night (infact I'm the one telling you all of that today like in this thread and if you've read what I posted before) like in boom-bust periods and much how the slight unemployment trend is arising today instantly, that's what happened in 1983, it accelerated when instant money was thrown/invested as stated above in 1984. That is instant employment openings, not like on tax cuts that you have to wait or more like assume that "wanted" signs will pop because of "more money is on the hands of the employer" BS. Simple business/capitalism aspect, no demand no new employment no matter how much you want to cut taxes.

No, it was not.

Seriously, do you pride yourself on the number of statistics you can ignore or argue over per subject?

Look at the data (which by the way, you used that exact source link in another argument) I posted right above you. The biggest drop was prior to that spending. You can argue all you want that it was the spending, but the largest drop in a short period of time of unemployment was after tax cuts, and before the spending you keep claiming was the real stimulant. You're premise is quite simply blown out of the water when you compare it to the facts.

Tax cut done in Feb-1981, unemployment still rises. Jan/1983 Reagan places spending on defense and technology. March Reagan Space Defense Initiative (SDI) and called upon the scientific community. Unemployment slowed by mid to late 1983 and by1984 it went onward down as the instant jobs created in technology let loose a unemployment downfall as technology was the way of the future and employed many. Like it or not tax cuts didn't carry out what you say.

Oh and you know that part that you avoided up there that high taxes screws up the economy.
Like I said before, US 20th History also proves your theory again wrong. When the upper most were taxed from 70% as high as 91-94% tax rate in the mid 20th century (the heydays) unemployment was as low as 2.9% and averaged to low 4.0%. I encourage you to look it up and get and remove your ignorance, before you start flapping your mouth that cutting taxes is the only sure way to run the economy, as if it’s gospel.

First of all, the tax cuts were a multiple-step process, so while you say "they were cut in 81, but the turnaround happened in late 83" (which is false, by the way--again, look at the stats I posted). Second, the rates were lowered effective in 82, not 81. The bill was signed in 81, but took effect in 82. Also, it's not just as simple as no demand, no employment. It's also a matter of investments, with the prospect of a good return. When the taxes were lowered, entrepreneurs and investors were more willing to take the risk of investing and growth. The employment growth follows this.

A couple of major flaws in your theory of it being the defense budget that pulled us out are these:
In 79, our defense spending increased over the previous year by 11%. In 80, it increased by 15%, followed by 16% in 81, 15% in 82, 10% in 83, and 12% in 84. Notice that the budget you claim was the huge stimulant wasn't as big of an increase as the previous years? And these numbers aren't even taking into consideration the amount of inflation we were seeing at the time. That alone blows holes in your assumption.Also, when a budget is proposed, the spending doesn't happen immediately. Yeah, he outlined the Strategic Defense Initiative in March, but the money wasn't spent immediately. The tax cuts were already in place and beginning to encourage investing.

And while you keep going back to the high taxes of the first half of the 20th century, there is a huge difference in the world economy then, and the competition it began to see by the 70's, not to mention the fact that the cost of employees was lower compared with what it is now, all due to added requirements from the government.

Believe me, I know economics and history, in spite of your feeble attempts to convince everyone else the opposite. Just because your liberal professors burned anti-capitalist rhetoric into you your whole life doesn't make you more informed. By the way, I'm from a very liberal area, so before you throw it back that I had conservative teachers who pushed their rhetoric on me, think again. Very often I would debate with my teachers on the facts, and I had two typical responses: some would stop calling on me, others would acknowledge my ability to draw my own conclusions. I don't simply follow anyone (since I'm sure you're going to come up with someone I must be parroting).

Remember that it was Kennedy who first lowered taxes to raise revenue, and it worked that time as well. It's worked every time it's been done. Your attempt at muddying the water with kansean BS is failing. I can go on all day with stats, and unlike yourself, I can show the cause-effect path with clear articulation.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:45 PM



Re: A sign of "change?"
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 2:31 PM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:

Quote:

^And (if) unemployement starts to slightly go down in the coming months, what excuse are you all going to say next?
If I recall nobody said we are in prosperity. Looks like if Obama was not in office, then the retliation of "this is not good news" BS you all give would not persist. We get it.
Personally, I don't give a flying F-uck whose in office, if news like this arise (slowing of the downfall) I would welcome it, why? Because that means where I am at, companies can start buying our services again.


excuses? i hope to hell it does come down.i dont like seeing my friends out of work.what were saying is if news like this arises it should be accurate and not just skewing the data to get the results you want.


exactly. GWGT, you keep trying to paint us as people who blindly deride obama as bad, no matter what the case. but thats not it at all. we are simply trying to show that the "facts" coming out of washington and the msm are really only propaganda for this administration. i would be absolutely delighted if things were better--or even as good as they say. but the truth is so far off from that that it is sickening.




Re: A sign of "change?"
Thursday, August 27, 2009 8:33 AM on j-body.org
Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Lastly, since when do you care for the little people, in this case small car lots?

An example of you making a foolish assumption and being wrong, hence your conclusions are wrong.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

And your view on them closing is an extreme and stupid outlook, especially when what you're writing as if you're ignorant on the type of cars being picked up for clunkers. And with cars being picked up, demand for them is not there, and with no/low demand those small dealers are not dumb enough go pick up vehicles that market does not want

It's not a matter of the cars, it's a matter of the fact that the C4C program is for new car sales only. You miss the most obvious details on a regular basis, all because you've got such a hard-on for another chance to take a stab at me. Once again, you've missed the mark.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Orlandomon wrote:

btw, we all know the only real way to fix out deficit is to RAISE taxes.

Wrong. It has been proven more than once that lowering taxes, by stimulating economic activity, actually raises revenue, because taxes are taken out of a bigger economy. When you raise taxes, you shrink the economy

An example of when you don't know history.
US 20th century history has an opposite outlook yours Greedy Monopolistic Pig.

Oh really? I've posted the statistics in more than one thread in this forum showing the revenue increases.

Lastly, this is yet another example of your failure to offer a legitimate argument with substance. Just a weak personal attack.

Thanks for the chuckle.


Were you not the one who made a signature JUST for the purpose of insulting him ? WOW What substance. The only pathetic one here is you, and the brainless twats who follow you. AND do nothing but cheer you on while making little to no contribution to any discussion. (I will give you kudos though on being possibly the only one on the right here in this ENTIRE forum who can somewhat argue for your side....)



My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
Re: A sign of "change?"
Thursday, August 27, 2009 10:41 AM on j-body.org
Numbers do not lie (well correctly figured ones anyways) and Mi. unemployment rate keeps going up. Come to think of it so has the nationwide unemployment. If things have really changed then why are they getting worse? most of teh numbers brandished on teh news are short term numbers that look good but when compared to the whole picture are really not very good at all. My anuitty shows a 3 month gain of 2% but a one year loss of 12.5%. Sure the three month looks good but its only a small slice of the pie. A lot can happen to the stock market in a matter of a month or two.



Re: A sign of "change?"
Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:19 AM on j-body.org
^Partly because there was still closures of auto industires and supliers in your state. And to my understanding the many closing of factories is just about done. Now because of this, you'll feel the after effects because of the closings, which will not be good.

Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

First of all, the tax cuts were a multiple-step process, so while you say "they were cut in 81, but the turnaround happened in late 83" (which is false, by the way--again, look at the stats I posted). Second, the rates were lowered effective in 82, not 81. The bill was signed in 81, but took effect in 82. Also, it's not just as simple as no demand, no employment. It's also a matter of investments, with the prospect of a good return. When the taxes were lowered, entrepreneurs and investors were more willing to take the risk of investing and growth. The employment growth follows this.

First of all, the tax cuts were a multiple-step process, so while you say "they were cut in 81, but the turnaround happened in late 83" (which is false, by the way--again, look at the stats I posted). Second, the rates were lowered effective in 82, not 81. The bill was signed in 81, but took effect in 82. Also, it's not just as simple as no demand, no employment. It's also a matter of investments, with the prospect of a good return. When the taxes were lowered, entrepreneurs and investors were more willing to take the risk of investing and growth. The employment growth follows this.

A couple of major flaws in your theory of it being the defense budget that pulled us out are these:
In 79, our defense spending increased over the previous year by 11%. In 80, it increased by 15%, followed by 16% in 81, 15% in 82, 10% in 83, and 12% in 84. Notice that the budget you claim was the huge stimulant wasn't as big of an increase as the previous years? And these numbers aren't even taking into consideration the amount of inflation we were seeing at the time. That alone blows holes in your assumption.Also, when a budget is proposed, the spending doesn't happen immediately. Yeah, he outlined the Strategic Defense Initiative in March, but the money wasn't spent immediately. The tax cuts were already in place and beginning to encourage investing.

And while you keep going back to the high taxes of the first half of the 20th century, there is a huge difference in the world economy then, and the competition it began to see by the 70's, not to mention the fact that the cost of employees was lower compared with what it is now, all due to added requirements from the government.

Believe me, I know economics and history, in spite of your feeble attempts to convince everyone else the opposite. Just because your liberal professors burned anti-capitalist rhetoric into you your whole life doesn't make you more informed. By the way, I'm from a very liberal area, so before you throw it back that I had conservative teachers who pushed their rhetoric on me, think again. Very often I would debate with my teachers on the facts, and I had two typical responses: some would stop calling on me, others would acknowledge my ability to draw my own conclusions. I don't simply follow anyone (since I'm sure you're going to come up with someone I must be parroting).

Remember that it was Kennedy who first lowered taxes to raise revenue, and it worked that time as well. It's worked every time it's been done. Your attempt at muddying the water with kansean BS is failing. I can go on all day with stats, and unlike yourself, I can show the cause-effect path with clear articulation.


First, your gloating and advertising of whatever BS you make up to show how much "you know everything" doesn't make you any more correct, and quite frankly I wipe my ass with it. As you wear Superman's cape, you can go tell your fairy tales story to your naive neighborhood kids. So please save it and don't waste band width.
Also I'm going to repeat it again, and it will be the last time. On Feb-1981 tax cut was signed 70% to 50% and much how Obama's tax withholding changed instantly (although still same rate), Reagan's lower tax deduction category (being the biggest % drop for the top) was put into effect immediately. Look it up on the US history of economics books where it is all documented. Later call the books “socialist” as it’s the only rebuttal you’d have as it proves you the opposite. Lastly another example is Clinton raised the taxes and the country was not phased one bit.

Now I see you making a stupid excuse that Carter administration spent more than Reagan, your % hike is an increase over previous year, either way it only went up. And Reagan’s plan cut for many other sectors including USPS, only for it to be focus on defense and technology. Read here on how spending went up.

Like it or not your & Rush Limbaugh’s theory on low taxes equal good prosperity is null because of how history played it out. You claim on the 70’s but it still had high taxes and country was still moving. Reagan instituted methods to instigate building abroad, tax breaks, so major companies were thrilled to not only spend less on manufacturing, but get money back in doing so, and the extra capital I gain in doing this it will be taxed at 50% to the later years 28%. You know I can understand Rush debating this as it affects him as he makes many millions, but a peasant/peon like you out to defend lower taxes on upper % is absurd at best.

Lastly Kennedy or Johnson did lower the rate from 91% to 77% for 1964, but the amount $$ he spent to do things here was astronomical. One example was he even funded Boeing to build a SST to go against the Concord, it was later canceled in 1969 as it was deemed "to costly."

Short Hand wrote:



Were you not the one who made a signature JUST for the purpose of insulting him ? WOW What substance. The only pathetic one here is you, and the brainless twats who follow you. AND do nothing but cheer you on while making little to no contribution to any discussion. (I will give you kudos though on being possibly the only one on the right here in this ENTIRE forum who can somewhat argue for your side....)

The man is a hypocrite, he loves to point what other's do, yet he does not recognize the crap he pulls.
But in his mind, he think as long as I post crap and respond on every topic, people will think I'm correct. Same philosophy as if; "if I keep telling myself this, eventually it will be true."


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.


Re: A sign of "change?"
Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:11 PM on j-body.org
/\ kinda sounds like you just described yourself. you both do it. pot meet kettle.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: A sign of
Thursday, August 27, 2009 1:25 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Also I'm going to repeat it again, and it will be the last time. On Feb-1981 tax cut was signed 70% to 50% and much how Obama's tax withholding changed instantly (although still same rate), Reagan's lower tax deduction category (being the biggest % drop for the top) was put into effect immediately. Look it up on the US history of economics books where it is all documented. Later call the books “socialist” as it’s the only rebuttal you’d have as it proves you the opposite. Lastly another example is Clinton raised the taxes and the country was not phased one bit.

Repeat it as many times as you want, it's still not fact. Seriously, get your shit straight, instead of wasting your time trying to come up with ways to belittle me, which fail on every level. The tax cut was not effective in 81. Look up on any source you chose, and you will see that the tax tables for 81 were unchanged. Here is one that shows all tax tables from 1913 to current. Also, while you love to harp on the drop from 70% to 50%, you continue to ignore the drops in the lower tax brackets. When he took office, the bottom rate was 14%. He lowered it to 12%, then 11%, while also raising the exemption.

As for Clinton raising taxes and it not having and it not having an effect, it wasn't a massive increase. It reinstated previously eliminated top brackets. Also, he took over in an economic growth period, and the economy was in a downturn by the end of his second term.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Now I see you making a stupid excuse that Carter administration spent more than Reagan, your % hike is an increase over previous year, either way it only went up. And Reagan’s plan cut for many other sectors including USPS, only for it to be focus on defense and technology. Read here on how spending went up.

LMAO. You seriously miss every point, don't you? I did not say Carter spent more than Reagan. Can you read? Seriously? You claimed his big defense budget increase in 84 was the reason for the unemployment rate decreasing. What I pointed out was that his increases over the previous year weren't some off-the-wall difference. Those percentages of increase that I posted were all in the defense budget. If you are capable of comprehending the whole picture, you can see these figures don't support your argument. The rate of increase actually had declined by the 84 budget, not accelerated. And as I stated before, this is just raw numbers, which do not take into account the inflation we were seeing at the time.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Reagan instituted methods to instigate building abroad, tax breaks, so major companies were thrilled to not only spend less on manufacturing, but get money back in doing so, and the extra capital I gain in doing this it will be taxed at 50% to the later years 28%. You know I can understand Rush debating this as it affects him as he makes many millions, but a peasant/peon like you out to defend lower taxes on upper % is absurd at best.

First, if Reagan's policies cause so many jobs to be moved over seas, hurting our economy, how did the unemployment come down so far during his two terms? Once again, the facts don't support your claim.

Second, when will you learn that having principles and standing for them means you don't just support self-serving redistributionist policies. This is a major point where you and I differ. You want to see policies that make other people bear more of a burden, as long as it's good for you, where I want to see fair policies for everyone, and a punitive, top-heavy tax system is not fair. It is also counter-productive to economic growth.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Short Hand wrote:



Were you not the one who made a signature JUST for the purpose of insulting him ? WOW What substance. The only pathetic one here is you, and the brainless twats who follow you. AND do nothing but cheer you on while making little to no contribution to any discussion. (I will give you kudos though on being possibly the only one on the right here in this ENTIRE forum who can somewhat argue for your side....)

The man is a hypocrite, he loves to point what other's do, yet he does not recognize the crap he pulls.
But in his mind, he think as long as I post crap and respond on every topic, people will think I'm correct. Same philosophy as if; "if I keep telling myself this, eventually it will be true."

So who's cheering who? LMAO. You two are the biggest hypocrites on here. You project your way of thinking and acting upon others, as if everyone sees things as selfishly as you do. Goodwrench, you love to claim I do exactly as you do, but what you fail to see is that from the beginning, you have always jumped right to attacking me and my intelligence rather than supporting your argument. You seem to have gotten away from your ridiculous size-5 all caps posts when your panties are in a bunch, but the number of times you've claimed that I am a fool, or ignorant, or don't know history, etc., is probably pushing triple digits by now.

Yeah, Short Hand, I made a sig making fun of him, for amusement. However, read my posts. One of my posts has more substance than any 10 of yours. As of late, you've actually made a few that attempted to make a point, but other than that, the majority of your posts are merely jabs at people you disagree with. I've lost count how many you've posted in response to mine that were basically one-liners trying to paint me as just some right-wing extremist nut-swinger.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, August 27, 2009 6:03 PM



Re: A sign of
Friday, August 28, 2009 9:28 AM on j-body.org
Re: A sign of
Friday, August 28, 2009 9:30 AM on j-body.org
Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Also I'm going to repeat it again, and it will be the last time. On Feb-1981 tax cut was signed 70% to 50% and much how Obama's tax withholding changed instantly (although still same rate), Reagan's lower tax deduction category (being the biggest % drop for the top) was put into effect immediately. Look it up on the US history of economics books where it is all documented. Later call the books “socialist” as it’s the only rebuttal you’d have as it proves you the opposite. Lastly another example is Clinton raised the taxes and the country was not phased one bit.

Repeat it as many times as you want, it's still not fact. Seriously, get your shit straight, instead of wasting your time trying to come up with ways to belittle me, which fail on every level. The tax cut was not effective in 81. Look up on any source you chose, and you will see that the tax tables for 81 were unchanged. Here is one that shows all tax tables from 1913 to current. Also, while you love to harp on the drop from 70% to 50%, you continue to ignore the drops in the lower tax brackets. When he took office, the bottom rate was 14%. He lowered it to 12%, then 11%, while also raising the exemption.

Quit talking about yourself & crying like a bitch. Thanks for reposting the same link I posted in this thread, now use it. Link it up to history books and you'll end up with what I said. I don't think 9th grade education, will tell you this, so I encourage you to go to the library. Ooops that would be to "socialist" for you, looks like you're f-ucked. So the saga of ignorance or lack of recognition (you choose) continues. As for Clinton, I reiterate: "Clinton raised the taxes and the country was not phased one bit." further disproving your & Rush's theory as a end all.

Quote:

LMAO. You seriously miss every point, don't you? I did not say Carter spent more than Reagan. Can you read? Seriously? You claimed his big defense budget increase in 84 was the reason for the unemployment rate decreasing. What I pointed out was that his increases over the previous year weren't some off-the-wall difference. Those percentages of increase that I posted were all in the defense budget. If you are capable of comprehending the whole picture, you can see these figures don't support your argument. The rate of increase actually had declined by the 84 budget, not accelerated. And as I stated before, this is just raw numbers, which do not take into account the inflation we were seeing at the time.
Look at the link I provided up there (again) and see how it was raised and costs in billions during his era. Like it or not again you are wrong. If you don't know numbers on defense spending $381.7b (1984) > $366.7b (1983).

Quote:

First, if Reagan's policies cause so many jobs to be moved over seas, hurting our economy, how did the unemployment come down so far during his two terms? Once again, the facts don't support your claim.

Second, when will you learn that having principles and standing for them means you don't just support self-serving redistributionist policies. This is a major point where you and I differ. You want to see policies that make other people bear more of a burden, as long as it's good for you, where I want to see fair policies for everyone, and a punitive, top-heavy tax system is not fair. It is also counter-productive to economic growth.

"Unemployment rate came down because 'unemployment benefits' ran out for them." har-har-har.
Jobs went to other sectors, i.e. defense and technology. The 80's was era where it introduced: Made in any where but the U.S.A."
Lastly, I look at US history and see what works. Besides "who told you life is fair?" har-har-har
Heh, two quotes all to familiar in your camp.

Quote:


So who's cheering who? LMAO. You two are the biggest hypocrites on here. You project your way of thinking and acting upon others, as if everyone sees things as selfishly as you do. Goodwrench, you love to claim I do exactly as you do, but what you fail to see is that from the beginning, you have always jumped right to attacking me and my intelligence rather than supporting your argument. You seem to have gotten away from your ridiculous size-5 all caps posts when your panties are in a bunch, but the number of times you've claimed that I am a fool, or ignorant, or don't know history, etc., is probably pushing triple digits by now.

Yeah, Short Hand, I made a sig making fun of him, for amusement. However, read my posts. One of my posts has more substance than any 10 of yours. As of late, you've actually made a few that attempted to make a point, but other than that, the majority of your posts are merely jabs at people you disagree with. I've lost count how many you've posted in response to mine that were basically one-liners trying to paint me as just some right-wing extremist nut-swinger.

Slice it, dice it, cut it, grind it, in the end you're still a hypocrite. The day you stop whining on what others do and then watch your actions, then you may have room to talk.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search