R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Bill, do you understand the concept of lowering taxes to encourage economic activity,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:The bottom line is that they are doing destructive things to the economy...
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).
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.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).
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!
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?Once again, reading > you.
Tell us what did then. Prove ME wrong.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
Quote:
Wow. Still trying to twist that part of history, are you?
Quote:
Obama came into office and inherit a $1.3 trillion deficit
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.
Quote:Probably in your world you must have debunked someone, but it surely was not me.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.