Thank You DTOP

That was long overdue.

Clinton raised taxes more than any other president in the history of the USA....

Now do any of you really think big corporations pay taxes????? No they don’t you do where, in your goods and service you buy from them...A company is not going to lose money so when they get taxed more they just pass it on to you....

Clinton would be a great person to party with, as a leader though he is less then desirable....

This thread is about Regan though and talk all the smack you want about him, bottom line he was a great man and upstanding American citizen possibly even a great role model for people of today...Oh and he was an actor

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Lets be honest, That is not what most GOP say. Whenever you bring up the Clinton Presidency the first words out of their mouths is "Monica, sex, Monica, sex, Monica".

I learned from one of my colleagues a very simple rule from his period as a US sales representative; "Never put your pen in company ink"... Clinton did spend a lot of company ink, but if people decide to talk about it that's because they do not have anything else to say.

NOTE TO THE MOD:

This is a political forum. What kind of arguing did you expect when you (administrators and or mods) put this on the forum list?

There is much hatred from one side to the other and in keeping with the typical political debates it always denegrates to name calling in one form or another.

For one, I would like to know who is complaining. If they are coming to a political board and do not expect to be confronted with differing opinions they need to be banned from this particular forum.

It's a shame that someone will throw up a $#!t stick and then complain when it starts a comotion.

If you will, check out virtually every other political forum board and you will see that this is a mild, very mild, iteration.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Thank You DTOP

That was long overdue.

From, undoubtedly, one of the complainers!

MMarsh, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!

Hey peeps, can you please take that on PM as this is one of the most interesting threads on the forum as we speak and I do not want to see it closed....

Thanks.

Originally Posted by sunb!

Hey peeps, can you please take that on PM as this is one of the most interesting threads on the forum as we speak and I do not want to see it closed....

Thanks.

peeps??

Senior Chief

I reported you, and I'll do it again easily if you force my hand. Its not about taking the heat, Its about following the rules of this community. Several months ago I made the mistake of responding angrily to another flamer. I was wrong to do so, and it got me in almost as much trouble as it did him. My lesson is learned. As DTOP pointed out you can make your arguement without personal attacks. If you can't, it means your arguement is worthless. So I WILL be reporting ANY violations (like flames, or other types of rudeness) I see. Consider that your only warning.

Donkey

Clinton's largest tax hike raised INCOME taxes on the wealthest 1.2% of Americans. It wasnt a corporate tax, it was a INCOME tax raise. He also increased the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) that provided tax cuts for the poorest 15 Million Americans. The result of this and of spending cuts resulted in the largest budget SURPLUS in 30 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#The_economy

But the subject is Reagan. So I'll go back to it. Reagan instituted (Supply side economics) which gave huge tax cuts to the rich which coupled with a massive military spending and a oncoming recession at the end of his term caused the greatest deficiet in U.S History (until Bush broken Reagans record in 2002).

I'll tell one of the biggest critics of Supplyside Econmics was none other than George H.W Bush Sr, he was the person who coined the term "Voodoo Economics". It is also known as TROJAN HORSE ECONOMICS because of the way it hides tax cuts to the Rich in the guise of helping the middle class.

After The Congressional Budget Office declared it a Failure did the WALL STREET JOURNAL (not exactly a beacon of liberal thought) declared the Supplyside economic debate "to have ended on a whimper".

That coming from the uber-conservative WSJ! I mean OUCH!

In short, Reagans Economic policies have been a declared a miserable failure by everyone except those its designed to help, the wealthy.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Clinton's largest tax hike raised INCOME taxes on the wealthest 1.2% of Americans. It wasnt a corporate tax, it was a INCOME tax raise. He also increased the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) that provided tax cuts for the poorest 15 Million Americans. The result of this and of spending cuts resulted in the largest budget SURPLUS in 30 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#The_economy

But the subject is Reagan. So I'll go back to it. Reagan instituted (Supply side economics) which gave huge tax cuts to the rich which coupled with a massive military spending and a oncoming recession at the end of his term caused the greatest deficiet in U.S History (until Bush broken Reagans record in 2002).

I'll tell one of the biggest critics of Supplyside Econmics was none other than George H.W Bush Sr, he was the person who coined the term "Voodoo Economics". It is also known as TROJAN HORSE ECONOMICS because of the way it hides tax cuts to the Rich in the guise of helping the middle class.

After The Congressional Budget Office declared it a Failure did the WALL STREET JOURNAL (not exactly a beacon of liberal thought) declared the Supplyside economic debate "to have ended on a whimper".

That coming from the uber-conservative WSJ! I mean OUCH!

In short, Reagans Economic policies have been a declared a miserable failure by everyone except those its designed to help, the wealthy.

You do realzie that when a goverment has a budget surpuls that means they over taxed you????

You also do realize that the wealthest Americans own those corporations???

Seriously when was the last time a poor person gave you a good paying job?????

Here for the other side of biased
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG928.cfm

Where do you get the info on this huge deficit...Personally I fell they are all lying to us I mean just do the math yourself it doesnt add up....Many econmics will also tell you that the deficit number is askew and not a good judge of a countries economy...

Originally Posted by Donkey

You do realzie that when a goverment has a budget surpuls that means they over taxed you????

You also do realize that the wealthest Americans own those corporations???

Seriously when was the last time a poor person gave you a good paying job?????

Here for the other side of biased
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG928.cfm

There are two sides to the argument. The left wingers and the right wingers.

It is my humble opinion that the majority of the left wingers are part of the "The Government needs to take care of me for anything" crowd. In the past the democrats have been the socialist type party and they cannot seem to get away from that aspect of their core values.

I have a very good friend that is full blooded Indian, I cannot spell nor pronounce the name of the tribe. She has complained through the years that it is a shame that the "poorest of the poor" do not have the gumption (her word) to pull themselves up by their boot straps and do something with their lives.

She grew up on a reservation. Once she graduated from HS she left the reservation....leaving her Indian ID that would get her free medical attention and money. She put herself through college and is now owns a large accounting firm. She says that it is up to the individual, not the Government to succeed in life. The democratic plan seems to want to keep those on welfare there for political expediency.

As was said. When was the last time a poor person offered anyone a good job with good benefits?

Originally Posted by bulldogg

No, the use of a male pronoun following a conversation wherein TWO males were being discussed leaves it very open and unclear. To me its obvious you mean Bush.

Seriously.

Lol, yea, when comparing an honourable action to a not so honourable course of action, i would think it was obvious who i meant, but yea you got it right