You Really Have To Love This Guy!
Donkey
Active member
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
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
sunb!
Forum Barbecuer
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.
Senior Chief
Banned
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.
From, undoubtedly, one of the complainers!
MMarsh, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!
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.
From, undoubtedly, one of the complainers!
MMarsh, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!
Last edited by a moderator:
Senior Chief
Banned
peeps??
mmarsh
Active member
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.
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.
Last edited:
Donkey
Active member
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...
Last edited:
Senior Chief
Banned
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?
fingolfin361
Active member
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
irate2:
mmarsh
Active member
Donkey
Surpluses can be saved for a rainy day. Or it can be used to improve things that couldnt otherwise be afforded. Surpluses are GOOD things. The government cannot perfect balance a budget its impossible and not desireable. Having a Government Surplus is very good for the economy, encourages foreign investment and a bunch of other goodies. In short, Better to be in the black than in the red.
Corporations are not owned by wealthy people. They are owned by lots of people, they are called shareowners, whom are mostly middleclass. There are very few truly privately owned global companies these days.
Here is how it works (Economics 101). Its the Middle Class the runs the economy, because when they have spare cash, they are the ones who buy cars, refrigerators, and most importantly, violent videogames. As orders for products goes up, demand for materials, jobs, wages goes up. In short version is, that money is in movement working its way UP the economic chain. Thats how the economy works from the consumer on up. Trickle UP Economics. Thats why the Consumer Index is such an important economic stat, people want to know how much extra dough people have.
By contrast, the rich do not buy things, they invest it (in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, Hedge Funds, etc) or they simply save it. In either case that money is frozen, it generates absolutly no growth.
The Theory in supply side economics (AKA Trickle DOWN) is that if you give the rich a handout (thats precisely what it is, a handout) they will use that money and invest it into their companies. As we saw, there are very few private companies and those few that still do own their companies do not want to invest it. Its human nature, People are greedy. I am sure many of us can relate to Bosses that didnt want to shell out the bucks to improve the core business.
So right off the bat, they never invest it on their business, they simply keep it. That money stays at the top and never trickles down to those on the bottom.
What about Small Business you ask? Thats just it. Despite the political BS, these tax cuts don't actually help small business owners. They are calculated only really start to help those making $2-5 million in income a year. Thats not small business anymore.
The only small business owners that rake in that type of money are the small Korean Grocers in NYC. (Any New Yorker will relate).
Surpluses can be saved for a rainy day. Or it can be used to improve things that couldnt otherwise be afforded. Surpluses are GOOD things. The government cannot perfect balance a budget its impossible and not desireable. Having a Government Surplus is very good for the economy, encourages foreign investment and a bunch of other goodies. In short, Better to be in the black than in the red.
Corporations are not owned by wealthy people. They are owned by lots of people, they are called shareowners, whom are mostly middleclass. There are very few truly privately owned global companies these days.
Here is how it works (Economics 101). Its the Middle Class the runs the economy, because when they have spare cash, they are the ones who buy cars, refrigerators, and most importantly, violent videogames. As orders for products goes up, demand for materials, jobs, wages goes up. In short version is, that money is in movement working its way UP the economic chain. Thats how the economy works from the consumer on up. Trickle UP Economics. Thats why the Consumer Index is such an important economic stat, people want to know how much extra dough people have.
By contrast, the rich do not buy things, they invest it (in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, Hedge Funds, etc) or they simply save it. In either case that money is frozen, it generates absolutly no growth.
The Theory in supply side economics (AKA Trickle DOWN) is that if you give the rich a handout (thats precisely what it is, a handout) they will use that money and invest it into their companies. As we saw, there are very few private companies and those few that still do own their companies do not want to invest it. Its human nature, People are greedy. I am sure many of us can relate to Bosses that didnt want to shell out the bucks to improve the core business.
So right off the bat, they never invest it on their business, they simply keep it. That money stays at the top and never trickles down to those on the bottom.
What about Small Business you ask? Thats just it. Despite the political BS, these tax cuts don't actually help small business owners. They are calculated only really start to help those making $2-5 million in income a year. Thats not small business anymore.
The only small business owners that rake in that type of money are the small Korean Grocers in NYC. (Any New Yorker will relate).
Last edited:
sunb!
Forum Barbecuer
mmarsh said:
I am not following you on this, mmarsh. Normally a stock increase in value when bought (read: viewed as a popular trade on the exchange) which create greater value for the company which stock is bought. A company can increase as much as 10% (extreme example) in value on the stock exchange one day; I learned this is economic growth... The money is not frozen, the money is invested in a promising company with a promising future and of course a potential penny pig for the risk willing saver. With a greater capital a company climbs on the credit ranks, and so on, to make a story short.
The money invested can be seen in the loop buying services, manufacturing equipment, and so forth...I don't get it how they are frozen, but it may be due to a difference between our two countries.
Last edited:
mmarsh
Active member
Sunbi
I'm sorry, I'll restate what I meant.
Your right when you buy a stock its value increases. I am not talking stock price. Stock price in of itself doesnt grow the economy (that what I meant by frozen). Although it can be an indictor of how the economy is going.
I am referring in terms of increasing orders, creating jobs, increasing wages, benefits, etc. These are signs of a growing economy. Investing money in stocks, bonds, options, etc has no effect on this.
Hence it makes no sense to throw (public) money at people that will NOT inject it into the global economy.
(Keep in mind that I am generalizing enormously, There are lots of exceptions and details I didnt mention, but I'd be here all month. Its much more complicated than I make it out to be).
I'm sorry, I'll restate what I meant.
Your right when you buy a stock its value increases. I am not talking stock price. Stock price in of itself doesnt grow the economy (that what I meant by frozen). Although it can be an indictor of how the economy is going.
I am referring in terms of increasing orders, creating jobs, increasing wages, benefits, etc. These are signs of a growing economy. Investing money in stocks, bonds, options, etc has no effect on this.
Hence it makes no sense to throw (public) money at people that will NOT inject it into the global economy.
(Keep in mind that I am generalizing enormously, There are lots of exceptions and details I didnt mention, but I'd be here all month. Its much more complicated than I make it out to be).
Last edited:
Senior Chief
Banned
That would be great, but in our history the Surpluses have been smoke and mirrors.
When the budget for a year is $858 B and you spend $850 B, it is called a surplus but in all respects the surplus is not money ahead it is an amount of money that is not applied to the deficit. The money in Clinton's era was not put against the national debt, it was redirected to other accounts or used as "surplus" expenditures.
The U.S. has been digging a hole that cannot be recovered from, this has been accomplished by both the republicans AND the democrats. Just because there is a republican/democrat in office the current rate of decline is attributed to their party, not many take into account that most of the time the Senate and/or House are controlled by the other party.
Your argument might be worded in an eloquent fashion, but it is not necessarily correct. My comment would be somewhat biblical: Let the party without sin cast the first stone! No stones could be thrown by honest men/women.
DTop
Active member
Senior Chief, don't take things so personally. You can state whatever opinion you'd like as long as you do it within the rules of the forum. The same rules that everyone agrees to when they sign up here. Stick to the rules and you're OK, don't and well... maybe this isn't the place you want to be. It's up to you.
PS: We can take this to PM if you'd like.
Senior Chief
Banned
This is not personal, if you read that into the comment I need to consider how to reword it.
I do not like to discuss open topics via PM, to me that is a cowards way to get his way.
If you don't like the stand I have you have the option to restrict my freedom of speech as a mod.
My point is, this is a political forum. Tempers get hot and those that have less than a firm grip when they are on the losing end of the discussion often step towards name calling and the like. I'm no exception, sometimes I let fly with stuff I shouldn't, but again this is a political forum and tempers will flare.
DTop
Active member
Then again, this is a forum with rules and everyone is required to abide by them. It is open to discussions, exchanges of views and ideas not to arguments. Each person makes his choices, does what he feels he needs to do and lives with the consequences of his actions. It's really quite simple. The staff is here to assure that the rules are followed. If you follow the rules, you have nothing to be concerned about.
Sometimes PM is the proper way to discuss any questions of concern and the Report feature is the proper way to respond to offensive posts on these forums.
Senior Chief
Banned
I'm not sure I understand. I don't think I've been offended enough to go tell Momma (the mods).
I'm sure I offended mmarsh. He made some pretty assinine remarks about one of my posts. I replied using all caps, he went ballistic. I was trying to make a point about responding to what was written, he had not and did not.