An interesting article on the "Death Tax" (estate taxes) - Page 3 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, August 02, 2010 11:04 AM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Bill, do you understand the concept of lowering taxes to encourage economic activity,

Of course not. I'm apparently stupid.

Seriously though...I understand the CONCEPT magnificiently, for I have not lived under a rock during my 35 years in the business sector. As a result, I also understand that this wonderfully palatable CONCEPT is not the singular salvation of this nation at this time.

Of course...I don't doubt the CONCEPT. However, I am also not a simpleton. I understand that this CONCEPT alone cannot solve all current ills, and that revenue streams must be enhanced to stop us from burrowing ever deeper into debt every passing day. As such, this misplaced panic about increasing taxes is a joke. It has to happen, and the sooner, the better.








Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, August 02, 2010 12:01 PM on j-body.org
LOL. From that response, it's clear you either don't truly understand it, or you believe it's simply an untested theory.

While this is not the single salvation of the ails of this country, it's the single largest step in the right direction they could make.

Since you believe it needs to happen sooner than later, this means we can assume that you'll be paying over and above the current required tax levels this year, to help get a jump on it, right?







Re: An interesting article on the
Wednesday, August 04, 2010 3:51 PM on j-body.org
Yeah, it's WAY beyond my grasp.

Anyway, to all:

What I like the most about this "no new taxes" argument (that the Right sticks to as if it were Gospel handed down from on high) is that it drives us even deeper into debt, costing us more $$$ in interest on our debt every passing second.

Wait...isn't it the LEFT that spends our money needlessly? Holy conflict, Bushman!






Re: An interesting article on the
Wednesday, August 04, 2010 4:39 PM on j-body.org
Yeah, it is the left that spends. In the last four years, their smallest budget had a deficit of over $400 billion (yep, 07 and 08 budgets were written by the Democrat majority in Congress). This year's is almost 4 times that.

And as I've shown with actual numbers, lowering taxe rates will yeild more revenue, so your argument about having to raise the rates because we're out of money doesn't hold water.







Re: An interesting article on the
Friday, August 06, 2010 5:18 AM on j-body.org
Holding water indeed. As we slip under the water, keep on preaching that tripe, waving that flag, and pretending you are for anyone but yourself. You'll find yourself even more alone than you already are.

Fatcats ruled the roost for years, got paid, and went home. Now the smoldering aftermath finds us buried in debt, and all you can say is "reduce tax revenue." Yeah, that's gonna work.





Re: An interesting article on the
Friday, August 06, 2010 6:48 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

and all you can say is "reduce tax revenue." Yeah, that's gonna work.
Try reading what I've said again, and try looking at the statistics of rates and revenue.






Re: An interesting article on the
Friday, August 06, 2010 10:16 AM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

and all you can say is "reduce tax revenue." Yeah, that's gonna work.
Try reading what I've said again, and try looking at the statistics of rates and revenue.

Try looking outside your door. The mess we find ourselves in has no "statistical" saviour for you to rely upon. It's unique, and uniquely bad.





Re: An interesting article on the
Friday, August 06, 2010 11:45 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Try looking outside your door. The mess we find ourselves in has no "statistical" saviour for you to rely upon. It's unique, and uniquely bad.
Yes, it is bad. It is continuing to remain bad because we have leaders who are focused on an agenda that has nothing to do with returning us to a prosperous nation, and everything to do with expanding central control. This is discouraging investment, and discouraging hiring. For someone who claims to be pragmatic, you are showing more and more evidence that you are simply sold on the rhetoric that we are in some kind of recovery, and these policies are beginning to work. They are going to make things worse than ever. Taxes increasing at this point in time will yield lower economic activity, and higher unemployment, which will ultimately lead to less tax revenue and more recipients of government assistance, resulting in the "need for more taxes". You're falling for a self-reinforcing problem being sold to you as the way out.






Re: An interesting article on the
Friday, August 06, 2010 9:34 PM on j-body.org
Ah, Quik...the real fact is, I don't buy into lockstep support of the current administration's policies, no matter how much you'd like to insist that I do. You'll continue to portray anyone who takes exception with your far right views as instantly far left, and that's your biggest shortcoming.

I simply know this: if we don't find alternate forms of increasing revenues, we are fcuked. Increasing inheritance taxes is one of the more palatable ways of achieving this. For this reason, it will happen.

Your vaunted Reaganesque supply-side economics cannot work with the current scenario. If you have an instance where they have, in a situation such as we are experiencing currently, please present it. I don't think you can, for as I've stated, we find ourselves at a unique and unprecedented crossroads. No single mindset alone can cure it, and most certainly not an extreme one.






Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Saturday, August 07, 2010 6:36 AM



Re: An interesting article on the
Saturday, August 07, 2010 7:36 AM on j-body.org
Well, Bill. If you feel that you are being pigeon-holed into a left-winger, maybe it's because you have yet to actually offer any indication to the rest of us that you stand for anything but nay-saying anyone who is against things happening right now. It's not my shortcoming, it's the fact that you merely spew the rhetoric that comes from the left. They've been saying for the last two years that this is the worse economic recession since the Great Depression. They said it before the 08 elections. Now that their policies are not working the way they claimed (remember, the stimulus bill would keep us under 8% unemployment), they're saying they didn't realize how bad it was. The bottom line is that they are doing destructive things to the economy, and allowing tax cuts and suspensions to expire, which will further damage the economy. When anyone here says anything against it, you defend it, and call them right wing extremists. How would anyone see you as anything but a lefty, in spite of your claims of pragmatism and centricism?

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Your vaunted Reaganesque supply-side economics cannot work with the current scenario. If you have an instance where they have, in a situation such as we are experiencing currently, please present it.
Really? You're such an economic expert that you can predict things that have worked repeatedly as I've shown, in various different economic situations, will not work now? Show me where it hasn't worked. The onus is on you at this point. Let's see you step up from your nay-saying to prove me wrong.






Re: An interesting article on the
Saturday, August 07, 2010 10:45 AM on j-body.org
Come to think of it, I can't recall him ever backing up his centrist views on anything, other than possibly voter ID check....interesting. Kinda like a self proclaimed vegetarian (but eats fish), but consistently spouts vegan rhetoric.
(I wonder if he's one of those people who wear swastikas to tea party rallies, hoping to get caught on tv "proving" the racism of the partiers?). Funny thing is about those guys, is that once they are discovered they are chased away with people waving arrow signs that say "SEIU thug" or "Not one of us"


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Re: An interesting article on the
Saturday, August 07, 2010 12:55 PM on j-body.org
Defender of My Waterpark wrote:

Come to think of it, I can't recall him ever backing up his centrist views on anything, other than possibly voter ID check....interesting. Kinda like a self proclaimed vegetarian (but eats fish), but consistently spouts vegan rhetoric.
(I wonder if he's one of those people who wear swastikas to tea party rallies, hoping to get caught on tv "proving" the racism of the partiers?). Funny thing is about those guys, is that once they are discovered they are chased away with people waving arrow signs that say "SEIU thug" or "Not one of us"

The mentality some of you all have today are so to the right that politicians like Bob Dole, Nixon, Reagan, Ford, Bush Sr., would not be voted in today, as their policies would be considered to soft or even in some cases "to left" to be considered today's Republicans. Today's "correct" right specturm has to be near or at Fascism and or Feudalism in theory, to be considered a legit Republican.
Bill, stay where you are at, you are safe there, any extreme on either side is never really a good position.

Today's Obama's health care plan is a mirror image to Dole's plan
Today's Obama spending to stimulate the economy is equivalent to what Reagan did. I can see the "tea party" already crowding in that era... oh that's right, it would never be an issue when a republican is in office.


R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Your vaunted Reaganesque supply-side economics cannot work with the current scenario. If you have an instance where they have, in a situation such as we are experiencing currently, please present it.
Really? You're such an economic expert that you can predict things that have worked repeatedly as I've shown, in various different economic situations, will not work now? Show me where it hasn't worked. The onus is on you at this point. Let's see you step up from your nay-saying to prove me wrong.

Curious, what is your measuring tool to show a conclusion to your belief? Neighboring environment or figures...which figures at that?


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: An interesting article on the
Saturday, August 07, 2010 2:26 PM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

The bottom line is that they are doing destructive things to the economy...

Funny. Outsourcing and the real estate overvaluation fiasco is what destroyed our economy. What's happening now is the aftermath of those horrifically greedy events.

All I can say is simply this: if you didn't want what's happening now, then your heroes should not have sold out the nation to pad their own bank accounts. You are all now getting precisely what was earned. The immensely entertaining part for me is that even though you personally didn't get rich off it, you are defending those who did as if your life depended on it. That makes you a stooge, a tool of the ultra-rich. Man, do they ever have you where they want you!





Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Saturday, August 07, 2010 4:08 PM



Re: An interesting article on the
Saturday, August 07, 2010 5:02 PM on j-body.org
You two are hilarious. Goodwrench, it's funny that you say "we" are to the right of Bob Dole, Nixon, Reagan, Ford, Bush Sr., and others. I'll give you that I'm to the right of Dole (and probably Ford as well), but your mirror-image claim to his health care plan is an exaggeration to the extreme. For one thing, I'd bet money that you still haven't even read most of what's in it, and you're still taking what you hear via rhetoric as what is actually in it. For another thing, he did not propose such vast power grabbing measures. He did suggest recently that people need to stop opposing reform just because a Democrat is doing it, but he was wrong in that assessment of what was going on with the debate.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Today's Obama spending to stimulate the economy is equivalent to what Reagan did.
Wow. Still trying to twist that part of history, are you? It's not even close to the same. Obama came into office and took a $400 billion deficit and turned it into a $1.3 trillion deficit in 3 short months, with a "tax cut" that was merely a small credit and an adjustment to the withholding tables (no change in actual rates), which ends this year, by the way. Reagan cut tax rates, which caused an increase in the deficit initially, were significant, and permanent. However, via the rapid increase in number of working people in the system, the deficit was decreased over time. Want to go down the road of defense spending again? I've debunked that for you already and showed you that his defense budgets increased over previous years less than Carters did, and at a declining rate of increase. Bush Sr. was conservative, but bent to the liberal congress and raised taxes in spite of his promise not to (which the same people that wrote the tax increases used to crucify him in 92).

What figures do I use? I already posted them. I have given evidence where taxes were lowered, and unemployment fell significantly (not just the rate, but significantly more people were actually working--contrary to our "dropping" unemployment rate now), and revenues increased significantly. I'm not posting them again in this thread, but I have posted them repeatedly, using statistics from the BLS and IRS. All you and Bill can do is claim I'm skewing, when in fact you can't substantiate any statement that it didn't work.


Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Funny. Outsourcing and the real estate overvaluation fiasco is what destroyed our economy. What's happening now is the aftermath of those horrifically greedy events.

All I can say is simply this: if you didn't want what's happening now, then your heroes should not have sold out the nation to pad their own bank accounts. You are all now getting precisely what was earned. The immensely entertaining part for me is that even though you personally didn't get rich off it, you are defending those who did as if your life depended on it. That makes you a stooge, a tool of the ultra-rich. Man, do they ever have you where they want you!
Outsourcing is now a cause of the economic collapse? Which "news source" or liberal politician are you quoting for this one? A for the housing bubble, we've been over that, and it was not because of conservative policies, it was because of the policies from the very people pointing the finger at "deregulation" causing it. It was government meddling into the housing market in the name of "fairness" (read: equal outcome, not equal opportunity).

As for your second paragraph of foolishness, we've been over that as well. And while I didn't get "rich" off of it, I did well. And again, the onus is on you at this point to prove my points wrong. I suspect more hollow jabs will ensue, showing your lack of ability to make a point at all, but have at it, because that is truely humorous.







Re: An interesting article on the
Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:35 AM on j-body.org
You have the GALL to success outsourcing and the real estate collapse did not put our nation in the shape it is in now?

Tell us what did then. Prove ME wrong.





Re: An interesting article on the
Sunday, August 08, 2010 11:16 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

You have the GALL to success outsourcing and the real estate collapse did not put our nation in the shape it is in now?

Tell us what did then. Prove ME wrong.
Once again, reading > you.

First off, I didn't say the real estate collapse wasn't the cause. I said it wasn't due to conservative policies, it was liberal ones trying to manipulate the market in the name of "fairness" which cause the mortgage disaster.

Second, you're not turning it around. I've given you ample opportunities to back up any of your points. You've failed at all turns.
At the end of the day, you have shown everyone that you have nothing but hollow mud slinging to post. Your failure. Have a nice day.







Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, August 09, 2010 6:24 AM on j-body.org
I don't CARE "whose" policies they were. Stop defending "your team" and start opening your eyes.

You can't prove your points, for the current situation has never before existed. What worked once won't work now. That's all the "proof" required.

You'll never admit it, for to do so would put you in violation of your boot-licking loyalty. Your mind is simply not open enough.

Awareness > you.






Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, August 09, 2010 10:03 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

I don't CARE "whose" policies they were. Stop defending "your team" and start opening your eyes.
Contrary to your opinion, I'm not blindly defending "my team". I'm talking about policies. You want to blame a party and their policies. I've simply pointed out why you're wrong. You've had nothing but the regurgitation of rhetoric coming from the left to add to any debate. I have opened my eyes, and I've looked at policies, and the statistics that pertain to them. The conclusion is simple. What is being done now is damaging our economy, and raising taxes in any form is only going to hurt more. If you want to see things turned around, it is you who needs to open your eyes and start looking at solid facts. Claims by liars in power are not facts. Reports from the compliant liberal media are not facts. Time to wake up, Bill.

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

You can't prove your points, for the current situation has never before existed. What worked once won't work now. That's all the "proof" required.
Laughable. You say I can't prove my point because this situation has never existed, yet you can prove what won't work? The bottom line is that tax and spend has never worked, but lowering taxes and cutting spending has worked every time. You're betting way against the odds here, and we've got evidence now that spending isn't working in this situation, so you've got to be eating up the rhetoric to believe it can work, and that any kind of tax increases will not put us further behind.

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

You'll never admit it, for to do so would put you in violation of your boot-licking loyalty. Your mind is simply not open enough.
More evidence that you're simply unable to make a point and back it up, so you've resorted to labling and nay-saying.
When you don't have anything positive to show for your argument, just try to cast doubt on your opponent. You sound just like a politician.







Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, August 09, 2010 10:45 AM on j-body.org
Stop just typing and start showing something of value. I'm not a tool of the "liberal media"...lol. I wish I could say the same about you and the right-wing extremist "movement" that causes more problems and divisiveness than it could ever solve.

I am particularly entertained by how you are convinced that current economic policies aren't working. This nation was rescued from the brink of utter financial collapse by these policies. The extent of the damage caused by lost wealth in the stock market / banking / real estate fiasco was immense beyond words, and you think it should have all just been instantly erased with a wave of the Congressional bill?

Do you have any IDEA how much money simply evaporated? How many people were ruined? Do you have any notion how long it takes to recover from that type of damage? Apparently not, for you hold the current administration to an impossible standard of "recovery" in a stupidly short amount of time.

Your team GUTTED this nation in a huge Ponzi scheme. Lost wealth, and now the long-term damage of lost jobs from outsourcing, are demonic specters you'd ATTEMPT to blame on the poor bastards who had the ill fortune of inheriting it all when the public threw the last money-happy bums out. Fortunately for America, only a minority (oh, I know you hate THAT word, lol!) buys into your team's belligerent, insulting drek. You'd best be happy that you got all the rednecks and high school dropouts on your side, for that's all you gonna get...intelligent and knowledgeable people are far too advanced to fall for this childish shat.

My point is taxes will have to be raised to cure the huge financial damage caused by the pain visited on us by the previous party in power. Your point is...?




Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, August 09, 2010 11:00 AM



Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, August 09, 2010 1:48 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Stop just typing and start showing something of value.
Take some of your own advice here. I've shown data to back up my points. What have you shown?

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

I am particularly entertained by how you are convinced that current economic policies aren't working. This nation was rescued from the brink of utter financial collapse by these policies.
Hundreds of billions of dollars spent, and we still continue to have net job losses. And you think it's working? We're only at 9.5% unemployment because the measured workforce continues to shrink. Hundreds of thousands of people have been giving up looking for work or running out of unemployment benefits.

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Your team GUTTED this nation in a huge Ponzi scheme. Lost wealth, and now the long-term damage of lost jobs from outsourcing, are demonic specters you'd ATTEMPT to blame on the poor bastards who had the ill fortune of inheriting it all when the public threw the last money-happy bums out.
Yeah, and you're not a tool of the liberals? What a joke. They've been in power for all intents and purposes since 2007. When are you going to accept the fact that the mortgage crisis was the result of the liberal policies. Twice within the past decade Republicans tried to pass legislation to reign in the sub-prime mortgage industry, and it was squashed both times with liberal hate mongering (because fixing the sub-prime mortgage industry would have been unfair to minorities--give me a break).

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

My point is taxes will have to be raised to cure the huge financial damage caused by the pain visited on us by the previous party in power. Your point is...?
Simply put, you're wrong. Raising taxes is going to further hurt us. Lowering them will help get us out. You can't increase the revenue when the number of people working (and paying taxes) continues to decline. It's amazing that you can't get something so simple through your head. You have to focus on unemployment first. Everything else will follow.

Now, if you're done whining about how you're not really on the left, why don't you try taking your advice and posting something with substance, because you spew nothing but hollow claims all day long in the face of facts.







Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, August 09, 2010 1:58 PM on j-body.org
By the way, here's something that I'd love to hear you explain away with your conservative bashing bullsh!t:

The most recent tax cuts, in 2003, resulted in increased tax revenues for each of the following years, after declining for the previous years (from it's peak in 2000):
2000 - 2.025 trillion
2001 - 1.991 "
2002 - 1.853 "
2003 - 1.782 "
2004 - 1.880 "
2005 - 2.153 "
2006 - 2.407 "
2007 - 2.568 "
2008 - 2.524 "

Note that while rates were lowered, the result was an increase in revenue, when the revenue had been declining. Lower rates increases the tax base (number of people paying in) and as a result, increases revenue. Oh, yeah, and as a side note, this was while we were supposedly gutting the manufacturing base, making it impossible for the same plan to work now, right?





Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, August 09, 2010 1:59 PM




Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, August 09, 2010 2:19 PM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Stop just typing and start showing something of value.
Take some of your own advice here. I've shown data to back up my points. What have you shown?

"Data" again, lol...that you twist and present out of context. Time and time again, your forays here into "data" have been exposed as every shade of useless, from openly biased to just plain silly. No one (worth having) believes your "data". Have you ever noticed that every time you hide behind your "data", you stand alone? WE all have, lol!
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

I am particularly entertained by how you are convinced that current economic policies aren't working. This nation was rescued from the brink of utter financial collapse by these policies.
Hundreds of billions of dollars spent, and we still continue to have net job losses. And you think it's working? We're only at 9.5% unemployment because the measured workforce continues to shrink. Hundreds of thousands of people have been giving up looking for work or running out of unemployment benefits.

Damn right it's working. It kept us from falling into the abyss and losing ALL face in the world's financial markets, and stopped a repeat, if not a surpassing, of The Great Depression.

Whine all you want about how it offends your political sensibilities, but if you think 9.5% unemployed is some sort of great failure, you have no idea how bad it could have gotten. That figure has leveled out when it could have kept on worsening. Now that it HAS leveled out, your handlers have instead taught you to parrot "DATA" about a reduced workforce in a lame attempt to save face about being wrong before when they told you is that unemployment would skyrocket. Meanwhile, while you claim a "reduced workforce", the nation's population INCREASES. Man, do they ever have your mind in a vise!

You, sir, are a talking head FOOL, and a tool of your keepers. Go find some "data" to prove THAT opinion wrong.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Your team GUTTED this nation in a huge Ponzi scheme. Lost wealth, and now the long-term damage of lost jobs from outsourcing, are demonic specters you'd ATTEMPT to blame on the poor bastards who had the ill fortune of inheriting it all when the public threw the last money-happy bums out.
Yeah, and you're not a tool of the liberals? What a joke. They've been in power for all intents and purposes since 2007. When are you going to accept the fact that the mortgage crisis was the result of the liberal policies. Twice within the past decade Republicans tried to pass legislation to reign in the sub-prime mortgage industry, and it was squashed both times with liberal hate mongering (because fixing the sub-prime mortgage industry would have been unfair to minorities--give me a break).

I don't blame a particular political faction for it...I blame a particular segment of society, those who made Large Bank off of it. That this group are primarily Conservative and the masters of your mind is a coincidence I did not cause.

Regardless of your petulant bleating of "LIBERAL! LIBERAL!" I don't have a "team" to back up like you do, or an opposing team to "blame". I simply attack extremists, so you are fair game. Were there any ACTUAL left-leaning extremists here, I'd give them the same medicine. Go on, whine some more about the liberals causing it...the fact is, the money made off it primarily ended up in wealthy pockets. Taking it back out of those pockets now via taxation policies, to stem some of the damage it caused, is perfect medicine.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

My point is taxes will have to be raised to cure the huge financial damage caused by the pain visited on us by the previous party in power. Your point is...?
Simply put, you're wrong. Raising taxes is going to further hurt us. Lowering them will help get us out. You can't increase the revenue when the number of people working (and paying taxes) continues to decline. It's amazing that you can't get something so simple through your head. You have to focus on unemployment first. Everything else will follow.


You can't fix the mess with we're in by just insisting that it's the other guy's fault. Compromise is the key, open-minded consensus and moderation are the answers, and all you can manage to do is waste valuable time hating the other side. I pity you, frankly.






Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, August 09, 2010 3:15 PM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

By the way, here's something that I'd love to hear you explain away with your conservative bashing bullsh!t:

The most recent tax cuts, in 2003, resulted in increased tax revenues for each of the following years, after declining for the previous years (from it's peak in 2000):
2000 - 2.025 trillion
2001 - 1.991 "
2002 - 1.853 "
2003 - 1.782 "
2004 - 1.880 "
2005 - 2.153 "
2006 - 2.407 "
2007 - 2.568 "
2008 - 2.524 "

Note that while rates were lowered, the result was an increase in revenue, when the revenue had been declining. Lower rates increases the tax base (number of people paying in) and as a result, increases revenue. Oh, yeah, and as a side note, this was while we were supposedly gutting the manufacturing base, making it impossible for the same plan to work now, right?

Again you ignore the increase in population as a reason why revenues increased. And again, lol, and this one is precious...you quote "data" from BEFORE the crunching recession, real estate and stock market collapse, and high unemployment hit us hard...you quote this data as some sort of "proof" that outsourcing hasn't hurt our economy. Holy fcuk, you just get worse and worse. The nation's tax revenue was down THIRTY PERCENT in 2009. Where in God's name is that kind of money to operate our government going to come from except huge debt? How in the hell will we ever climb out of that hole without radical revenue measures?

You live in a vacuum. I have spent the past several years traveling this nation and seeing firsthand the damage caused by the horrific money-taking of the 90's. Disturbing numbers of shuttered mom/pop businesses, foreclosed homes, a total malaise...people with distant expressions who wonder what happened to their slice of the American dream. It's a very grim picture out there, and all you can do is hide behind "data".

I spend time in the trenches with families who wonder how they'll ever earn a decent living again, or ever afford to buy a house...while you curse them all for being "lazy" and "on the dole". These people earned better. They are our CITIZENS. Nay...in many cases, they are our sisters and brothers. We all must band together to give them a leg up, not kick them in the face so they fall back into a financial grave.

Yeah, it's going to cost a lot of money. Yes, it's going to take many years. No, it won't just "fix itself" via just your "pro-business" tactics.

I find you to be unsympathetic and apparently very isolated for not seeing that this nation was sold up the river by the very interests you disgustingly wave our FLAG for. Your ilk frankly make me ill. May God have mercy on your souls.





Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, August 09, 2010 3:53 PM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

You two are hilarious. Goodwrench, it's funny that you say "we" are to the right of Bob Dole, Nixon, Reagan, Ford, Bush Sr., and others. I'll give you that I'm to the right of Dole (and probably Ford as well), but your mirror-image claim to his health care plan is an exaggeration to the extreme. For one thing, I'd bet money that you still haven't even read most of what's in it, and you're still taking what you hear via rhetoric as what is actually in it. For another thing, he did not propose such vast power grabbing measures. He did suggest recently that people need to stop opposing reform just because a Democrat is doing it, but he was wrong in that assessment of what was going on with the debate.

Both are indeed "Right" of any past president within your party, more so, you. Be proud to swing your pendulum to breaking point, just don't come preaching that it is gospel. And yes, I did not read the healthcare bill from cover to cover, but I did skim through it and read about 200 +/- pages of it; which is why I made the comment that I did (you, on the other hand just regurgitate Rush Limbaugh's position and clearly didn't read squat), I read on Dole's plan from the mid-90s as an assignment in the university which is why it is so common. The bill Obama wanted initially was close to Dennis Kucinich's plan and the end result was basically expanding the private sector's insurance. Henceforce insurance stocks went up for a reason if you're not aware of it.
Also, this is something you don't like to see, so I'll show it to you.

"Power-grabbing measures?" Really? Is that a new one in the extremist club? You want to read "power-grabbing measures?" Here is one that you may conveniently have forgotten:
Onward came the blank checks.
Quote:

Wow. Still trying to twist that part of history, are you?

I don't twist anything, it is there. I understand FOX news’s alternative schools they tend skip out on that and just hope people will just forget or just stay ignorant. Fortunately, there are history books that will tell in details of it. It is just a matter of not being lazy or just have a mentality equivalent of accepting that the tooth fiery is not real as the news might be shocking for some.
Quote:

Obama came into office and inherit a $1.3 trillion deficit

Fixed to accurate standards.
Quote:

Reagan cut tax rates, which caused an increase in the deficit initially, were significant, and permanent. However, via the rapid increase in number of working people in the system, the deficit was decreased over time.

For the past 30 years, Republican approach to economic policy has pretty much boiled down to this message: The right response to all problems is cutting taxes. To bolster this message, they rely heavily on two arguments. On the one hand, they say, cutting taxes will increase tax revenues by generating economic growth, thus raising tax revenue and building a surplus. (This is known as the Laffer Hypthesis). On the other hand, Republicans claim, tax cuts are good because they create deficits and force the government to shrink itself. (A colloquial term for this is Starve the Beast).
The arguments are not only mutually exclusive – the weight of the economic evidence also shows that they’re both wrong. The habit of Republican policymakers to invoke each of them at different points in time (or before different audiences) is politically convenient but logically dishonest. It smacks of a particularly desperate defense attorney arguing both that "my client didn't have a gun" (Laffer) and "he shot in self-defense" (Starve the Beast).
Neither proposition accurately describes US economic history, nor provides a sound basis for future economic policy. That is, choosing either proposition would harm the long-term health of the US economy.
After Ronald Reagan took office, he addressed the American people on the sorry state in which he had inherited the nation’s finances. His predecessors had, cumulating all the budget deficits, run up a national debt of almost one trillion dollars (actually, $0.9 trillion) and all the BS possible. He explained how much money this was. Fixing the national debt was to be one of the priorities of his Administration. By the time Ronald Reagan completed his first term in office, his budget deficits had – in round numbers -- added a second trillion to the national debt, as much as all 39 of his predecessors combined. By the time he left office at the end of 1988, his continued deficits had added yet a third trillion dollars. By the time his successor, George H.W. Bush, left office at the end of 1992, completing three Republican terms, the national debt stood at four trillion dollars.
During Bill Clinton’s two terms, the inherited budget deficit was converted to a surplus and the country at long last began to pay down the national debt.
This progress was reversed by George W. Bush . During his two terms in office the surplus he inherited has been rapidly converted back into a deficit, and, he has increased the national debt by approximately as much as had his father, plus Ronald Reagan, plus all 39 preceding presidents combined had increased it before him.
Quote:

Want to go down the road of defense spending again? I've debunked that for you already and showed you that his defense budgets increased over previous years less than Carters did, and at a declining rate of increase.
Probably in your world you must have debunked someone, but it surely was not me.

U.S. Military Spending: (billions of actual or projected dollars)
1976 283.8
1977 286.2
1978 286.5
1979 $295.6
1980 303.4
1981 317.4
1982 339.4
1983 366.7
1984 381.7
1985 405.4
1986 426.6
1987 427.9
1988 426.4
1989 427.7
1990 $409.7
1991 358.1
1992 379.5
1993 358.6
1994 338.6
1995 321.6
1996 307.4
1997 305.3
1998 296.7
1999 298.4
2000 311.7
2001 $307.8
2002 328.7
2003 404.91
2004 455.91
2005 495.31
2006 535.91
2007 527.41
2008 494.41
2009 494.31
Quote:

What figures do I use? I already posted them. I have given evidence where taxes were lowered, and unemployment fell significantly (not just the rate, but significantly more people were actually working--contrary to our "dropping" unemployment rate now), and revenues increased significantly. I'm not posting them again in this thread, but I have posted them repeatedly, using statistics from the BLS and IRS. All you and Bill can do is claim I'm skewing, when in fact you can't substantiate any statement that it didn't work.

and just answer the question.
Quote:

When are you going to accept the fact that the mortgage crisis was the result of the liberal policies. Twice within the past decade Republicans tried to pass legislation to reign in the sub-prime mortgage industry, and it was squashed both times with liberal hate mongering (because fixing the sub-prime mortgage industry would have been unfair to minorities--give me a break).

How did the subprime market has grown?
"Deregulation allowed cross-fertilization between banks and financial service firms, while the federal government in the 1980s lifted mortgage interest ceilings. Congress in 1986 ended the deductibility of consumer debt, such as credit card payments, though still letting filers deduct mortgage interest. The change provided incentives for refinancing. Even rates for subprime loans at 3 percentage points above prime loans, or about 8% to 9% now, are lower than many 18% credit card rates.
Advances in risk modeling have produced standardization. The bond market for subprime loans has provided cash.
The majority of subprime mortgages are now sold by the initial lenders, bundled into bonds and offered to individual and institutional investors. In 1994, $11 billion of subprime mortgages were sold on the secondary market; in 2003, it was more than $200 billion."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-12-07-subprime-day-2-usat_x.htm
If Bush or his economic advisors had on ounce of vision and actually cared for the nation, he would done something about it... Veto. Coincidently the nice help came in 2003. But that's what happens when you are out looking for votes.

Lastly, Bill what you've said was dead on accurate.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, August 09, 2010 4:37 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

"Data" again, lol...that you twist and present out of context. Time and time again, your forays here into "data" have been exposed as every shade of useless, from openly biased to just plain silly. No one (worth having) believes your "data". Have you ever noticed that every time you hide behind your "data", you stand alone? WE all have, lol!
LMAO. You have nothing, so you waste your endless key-pounding on making hollow unsubstantiated claims. Once again, Bill, you have nothing but nay-saying.

I will point out to you again, since you missed it in your red-faced tirade, that the 9.5% "leveling off" is false. We continue to lose people from the workforce, so the rate stays the same, but there are less people working. Last month we lost another 131,000 jobs. The current policies have not fixed anything. We are at a real unemployment rate of 17%, but the reported rate excludes people who are no longer collecting benefits.


Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

I spend time in the trenches with families who wonder how they'll ever earn a decent living again, or ever afford to buy a house...while you curse them all for being "lazy" and "on the dole".
Proof yet again that you haven't listened. You want to smear me as some kind of heartless corporate dickhead, because to admit otherwise leaves you with nothing to rant about. I stand by my principles because they are good for everyone, not just a select group. And I work with the very people you talk about every day. I work with small business owners who are trying to figure out how to avoid letting anyone else go, and they see how things are going in the wrong direction for them to be able to do it.

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Again you ignore the increase in population as a reason why revenues increased. And again, lol, and this one is precious...you quote "data" from BEFORE the crunching recession, real estate and stock market collapse,
You really are thick-headed.

So if it was all due to the population growth, explain how the revenues were falling prior to the tax cuts. Really? Do you think about what you type? You constantly use your arguments in such a one-way fashion that you put your foot in it left and right. As for quoting the data before the recession, we've been over this already. When you have a massive collapse like that, of course the revenue is going to drop, but that has nothing to do with the tax cuts, and everything to do with the massive mortgage crisis cause by the liberal manipulation of the market.

The rest of your useless babbling is not even worth my time. You can't do anything other than suggest that my argument is flawed because my data is skewed. Frankly, you're simply a rhetoric-spewing moron who can't make a factual argument to save his life.

And, look! Your sidkick is here with more missed points!

Yeah, Goodwrench, just as I thought. You've read less than 10% of it. I had read more than that a year ago when Obama was doing his town hall tour (which I attended in NH), and in one of the discussion threads, I even pointed out the page numbers of where you could find the proof he was lying about it. I've read about half of it, and it isn't expanding the private sector, it's going to destroy it. As for the stocks going up, that's because we've got 4 years before many of the things take place that are going to really change things, and Wall Street is all about making the buck now and worry about getting out later.

As for your "fixing" of my statement regarding the deficit Obama inherited, look up the real numbers, and listen to him in his own words in November of 08 about how unsustainable these $400 billion budget deficits were. However, within one month, he managed to get his $787 billion "stimulus" bill, and then the $400 billion Omnibus bill a couple of short months later. Hypocrisy, and you've got your blinders on if you think otherwise.

And what a surprise that you missed the point again about the defense spending. The percentage of increase in the defense budget declined under Reagan. If you're capable, do the math. I spelled it out for your before, and if I remember correctly (I'm sure I do), you blew a gasket with some bold size 5 words screaming about billions.


Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

How did the subprime market has grown?
Want to call me the illiterate SOB again? Priceless.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

In 1994, $11 billion of subprime mortgages were sold on the secondary market; in 2003, it was more than $200 billion.
Yes, and why was it so much higher by then? Because of the ever-stretching reach of the CRA, and how it empowered Fannie and Freddie to push banks into offering loans to the less than credit worthy, with terms that they wouldn't be able to keep up with. And who expanded these powers? Hmmm? You've got about an inch more to offer than Bill does. At least you make an attempt by quoting someone. However, you both fail to accept the fact that the problem was based in the liberal attempts at market manipulation. It was all about "fairness", but in reality, it was all about power.






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

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search