# Those fiscally responsible Democrats...



## Zander (Feb 3, 2010)

The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007. That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion. I was disgusted with that., there is simply no reason to spend more than you take in year after year after year. NONE.  But it is getting far worse thanks to the Democrat Congress. 

The next year 2008,  under the Pelosi-Reid Democratic Congress, the deficit shot up to $458 billion. The next year, in 2009, it was a mind-boggling $1.4 trillion.

In this new budget, of course, The Democrats and Obama propose to spend $1.6 trillion more than we have!  The Democrats  are on pace to triple the national debt by 2020.  Nice work assholes!!







No amount of fairy dust, unicorn rides, and "Hopeychangey" feelings can hide these facts. These aren't just abstract numbers on a graph. This is grotesque government spending - and the tax increases that inevitably accompany such spending will only kill jobs. That is precisely what we don't need right now.   

November cannot come soon enough......


----------



## midcan5 (Feb 3, 2010)

What are you a comic? You believe that some buffoon knows the future now??? 

The Current ReaganBush Debt is: $11,431,553,145,784.50 which means that in a total of 20 years, 
these three presidents have led to the creation of 92.44% of the entire national debt in only 8.547% of the 234 years of the existence of the United States of America.

ReaganBushDebt.org



The Conservative Nanny State
http://www.republicancorruption.com/


"When George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, he inherited peace and prosperity. The military, the Constitution and New Orleans were intact and the country had a budget surplus of $128 billion. Now he's about to dash out the door, leaving a large, unpaid bill for his successors to pay."


Global Warming - Salon.com


----------



## Joe Steel (Feb 3, 2010)

Zander said:


> No amount of fairy dust, unicorn rides, and "Hopeychangey" feelings can hide these facts. These aren't just abstract numbers on a graph. This is grotesque government spending - and the tax increases that inevitably accompany such spending will only kill jobs. That is precisely what we don't need right now.



Utter nonsense.

Taxes don't kill jobs.  Taxes fund spending and spending is what we need to end the Conservative Recession.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 3, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > No amount of fairy dust, unicorn rides, and "Hopeychangey" feelings can hide these facts. These aren't just abstract numbers on a graph. This is grotesque government spending - and the tax increases that inevitably accompany such spending will only kill jobs. That is precisely what we don't need right now.
> ...



You don't spend your way out of a recession.  It's never worked and it never will.  It's that simple.  It's a reckless policy.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 3, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> The Current ReaganBush Debt is: $11,431,553,145,784.50 which means that in a total of 20 years,
> these three presidents have led to the creation of 92.44% of the entire national debt in only 8.547% of the 234 years of the existence of the United States of America.



Which in no way excuses Obama adding to it at a record pace.


----------



## Joe Steel (Feb 3, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



That's simply nonsense.

Recessions are caused by a lack of spending and pending is the _only_ way to get out of a recession.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 3, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > You don't spend your way out of a recession.  It's never worked and it never will.  It's that simple.  It's a reckless policy.
> ...



It's not quite that simple and I don't have time to give you an economics lesson right now, though I doubt you'd learn anything from it anyway.


----------



## Joe Steel (Feb 3, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > That's simply nonsense.
> ...



In fact, it _is_ that simple.  

Spending is the only way out.

Let that be the first lesson of your reeducation.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 3, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



I have almost completed my MBA.  I assure you I know what I'm talking about.  There are several factors that go into what create and end various economic cycles.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 3, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



You are possibly the biggest ignoramus in economics on this board.  Gov't can only spend money one place by taking it from another place.  Gov't spending has never worked to end recession.  This time will be no different.


----------



## Zander (Feb 3, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > No amount of fairy dust, unicorn rides, and "Hopeychangey" feelings can hide these facts. These aren't just abstract numbers on a graph. This is grotesque government spending - and the tax increases that inevitably accompany such spending &#8211;will only kill jobs. That is precisely what we don't need right now.
> ...



Put down the bong comrade. Higher taxes destroy jobs. It is a fact. Jimmy Carter believed the raising taxes was good and we were rewarded with 21% interest rates and high unemployment.  Then Reagan cut taxes that helped to create 21 million new jobs and ushered in 20 years of prosperity. Not to mention increased revenue massively.


----------



## asaratis (Feb 3, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> What are you a comic? You believe that some buffoon knows the future now???
> 
> The Current ReaganBush Debt is: $11,431,553,145,784.50 which means that in a total of 20 years,
> these three presidents have led to the creation of 92.44% of the entire national debt in only 8.547% of the 234 years of the existence of the United States of America.
> ...


You are an imbecile.  Obama and his 1.6 TRILLION dollar budget will be the ruination of what is left of our economy.  I wonder sometimes if that is not his goal.  Obama is a goddamned Marxist.  He would love to see this successful capitalistic economy fail...and you parrot him with glee.  What a fucking imbecile you are.



Joe Steel said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > No amount of fairy dust, unicorn rides, and "Hopeychangey" feelings can hide these facts. These aren't just abstract numbers on a graph. This is grotesque government spending - and the tax increases that inevitably accompany such spending will only kill jobs. That is precisely what we don't need right now.
> ...


You are also an imbecile.  Taxes kill jobs.  Taxes keep people from spending money on what they want.  Taxes are a burden and a detriment to a thriving economy.  Big government is the problem.  Government telling people what the money should be spent on is a secondary problem.  Obama and others like him would like nothing more than if half the population worked in government, being paid by taxes on everything...as long as he and his family and his cronies can rip off whatever money and perks they can legislate to themselves.  GOVERNMENT IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM.

Every government agency we have should be reviewed with a microscope to see just how many government jobs we can DO AWAY WITH.  Let the leeches join the ranks of the unemployed masses that they have created with their fucking taxes and unnecessary SPENDING.

All you imbeciles need to wake up and smell the DEFECATION being spread by the massive Obama deficit. 

*Obama is a fucking MARXIST ASSHOLE!  So is his wife!  So are those he calls CZARS.*

WAKE UP, YOU FUCKING IMBECILES!!!!!



Joe Steel said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...


Yeah, right.  The only way to get pay down the credit card balance is to charge more to it.  You are the epitome of a fucking imbecile.

No wonder liberalism is a mental disorder.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 3, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> "When George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, he inherited peace and prosperity. The military, the Constitution and New Orleans were intact




Bush caused Katrina?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 4, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1972944 said:
			
		

> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > "When George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, he inherited peace and prosperity. The military, the Constitution and New Orleans were intact
> ...



Bush also caused teh decommissioning of numerous units under Clinton.
I think Bush caused the last cold I had.


----------



## Joe Steel (Feb 4, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, it _is_ that simple.
> ...



See if you can get your money back.

Joe Steel CPA, BS, MA


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 4, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> What are you a comic? You believe that some buffoon knows the future now???
> 
> The Current ReaganBush Debt is: $11,431,553,145,784.50 which means that in a total of 20 years,
> these three presidents have led to the creation of 92.44% of the entire national debt in only 8.547% of the 234 years of the existence of the United States of America.
> ...



Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending
Congress controls spending Congress controls spending Congress controls spending


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 4, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



Joe Steel, Moron


----------



## Joe Steel (Feb 4, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, it _is_ that simple.
> ...



Not while you're around.



The Rabbi said:


> Gov't can only spend money one place by taking it from another place.  Gov't spending has never worked to end recession.  This time will be no different.



You're wrong.

First look-up _marginal propensity to consume_.  

Moving money from the more-affluent to the less-affluent increases economic activity

Secondly, research the Great Depression and WWII.  Most economics agree the Great Derpession was only beaten when government began spending for WWII.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 4, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



Hoover raised taxes and regulations and FDR boosted spending and that is how you turn a recession into a disaster that eclipses the 7 Biblical Lean years

Seriously, you're clueless, stop embarrassing yourself


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 4, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



Please stop posting, it's embarrassing


----------



## Joe Steel (Feb 4, 2010)

Zander said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Utter nonsense.
> ...



Utter nonsense.  To the extent Reagan created prosperity and increased revenue, it was because he borrowed a lot of money and spent it.  All that spending was a good way to boose economic activity (aka Keynesianism) and that resulted in higher tax revenue.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 4, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...




I begged you to stop embarrassing yourself but you wouldn't listen.

Why was Reagan such a successful "Borrower and spender" yet FDR was such an epic failure?


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 4, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...




Dude if you truely think spending will harm a recession you have to be able to do more than say " I took classes so there".

IN fact when you have a recession what is happening?

People stoped for one reason or another buying things. 

The recession does not look at the money and say " oh know that money comes from the gov so It wont effect me". 

Its an infusion of cash into the market which is having a derth of cash.

This in fact worked in the GD and saved people (REAL HUMAN BEINGS) from starving.

Whatever you WANT to believe has no effect on what is the truth.

The truth is cash infusions from ANYWHERE help move us to a recovery from a recession.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 4, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



Wrong!

If spending for spending's sake actually worked they would not have been a Great Depression and Obama would not have a real 17% unemployment

You people are so foolishly inconsistent you claim only Reagan's deficits had any real positive economic impact.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 4, 2010)

Stop googling, you won't find it


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 4, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



You are ill informed at best, a buffoon at worst.  Moving money from the more productive to the less productive results in less production.
The Depression was lifted as a result of virtual zero unemployment as the military took a big chunk of labor.  Add to that orders for goods from overseas.
All this happened despite 9 years of gov't spending by Roosevelt, not because of it.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 4, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



So tell us then all wise one what ends a recession?

this should be pretty funny.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 4, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



This recession will end when Obama loses control of Congress in November, he has paralyzed the Capital Markets and a lot of it is intentional


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 4, 2010)

wow just wow.

The markets will revcover when people start spending again.

The people wont start spending again until they have money to spend.

The people wont have money to spend until they can make more money or they trust things are getting better.

Things cant get better until there is more money being spent.

Does it not work if the money comes from a certain place?

No , money is money.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 4, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> wow just wow.
> 
> The markets will revcover when people start spending again.
> 
> ...



Wow, just wow.
The most ignorant analysis I have seen of an economic problem.  You are truly at sea. I really feel sorry for you.
It is no wonder you voted for Obama.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 4, 2010)

All insults and no substance, why am I not surprized


----------



## Charles Stucker (Feb 4, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> The Current ReaganBush Debt is: $11,431,553,145,784.50 which means that in a total of 20 years,


Which part of that "debt" was caused by Democrat congresses?
How much was part of ongoing expenses from programs originated by Democrats?
The answer is "Most"




midcan5 said:


> "When George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, he inherited peace and prosperity.


Another complete *LIE*
Al Gore destroyed the economy between the election and Bush's 2001 inauguration with his selfish attempts to undermine the constitution and force his way into the white house.
The Peace to which you refer was a nebulous thing at best because the 9/11 plot was a direct *RESULT* of Clinton's mismanaged foreign policy, and Clinton insured Bush would be blindsided by a group which had been planning and training for the attack during Clinton's reign.


----------



## jigusjaan (Feb 4, 2010)

right 


Charles Stucker said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > The Current ReaganBush Debt is: $11,431,553,145,784.50 which means that in a total of 20 years,
> ...


----------



## TheSuaveOne (Feb 4, 2010)

Charles Stucker said:


> Clinton insured Bush would be blindsided by a group which had been planning and training for the attack during Clinton's reign.



Wrong. The Clinton administration as well as his own tried to warn him. He was briefed on the threat AQ was to the US. Nothing was done to prevent the attack. Yes, they were masterminded during the Clinton administration, but to claim Bush was blindsided is dishonest.

-TSO


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 4, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> wow just wow.
> 
> The markets will revcover when people start spending again.
> 
> ...



I'm only going to explain this once so you might want to print it out.

The Capital Markets HATE Libruls and avoid them like the plague. 

The Capital Markets have been reeling since the Marxists took control of US Congress in 06 and the Obama Presidency and his anti-capitalist policies have turned the USA radioactive. 

The vast majorities of business large or small will not commit capital in a country where: taxes will rise, major industries have been nationalized and instead of taking pains to reduce the cost of doing business, the government does all it can to stifle investment.

And you wonder why the economy continues to struggle despite the fact that Obama is spending like a crackhead the whole time.

Things will improve once it becomes obvious that Dems will lose Congress


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 4, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> Moving money from the more-affluent to the less-affluent increases economic activity.




So now you're talking about wealth redistribution, not simply government spending.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Feb 4, 2010)

TheSuaveOne said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> > Clinton insured Bush would be blindsided by a group which had been planning and training for the attack during Clinton's reign.
> ...


Horse shit.
Clinton did everything in his power to insure that Bush would not be ready for an attack. Clinton could have told Gore to man up and conceded the day after the election, but did not. Clinton and Gore were delighted with the crash of the economy as Bush was set to take power - they expected him to be a one term president because of their destruction of the market. 
Why should George W Bush believe a lying conniving swine like Bill Clinton, the man who got into office with the line "it's the economy stupid" when he is told "Ignore the economy I just destroyed, get Bin Laden." 
Typical Democratic double dealing.
And 9/11 was the result.


----------



## Joe Steel (Feb 4, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1974314 said:
			
		

> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Moving money from the more-affluent to the less-affluent increases economic activity.
> ...



Most taxes are wealth redistribution to some extent. 

So?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 4, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1974314 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Lady Thatcher.


----------



## Joe Steel (Feb 5, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1974314 said:
> ...



Why would I care what Thatcher said?


----------



## Meister (Feb 5, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



You never let me down, Joe.  It's never the message with you, it's about the messenger.   Thanks for the chuckle


----------



## Navy1960 (Feb 5, 2010)

HAMADA, Japan  The Hamada Marine Bridge soars majestically over this small fishing harbor, so much larger than the squid boats anchored below that it seems out of place.

And it is not just the bridge. Two decades of generous public works spending have showered this city of 61,000 mostly graying residents with a highway, a four-lane bypass, a university, a prison, a children's art museum, the Sun Village Hamada sports center, a bright red welcome center, a ski resort and an aquarium featuring three ring-blowing beluga whales.

Nor is this remote port in western Japan unusual. Japan's rural areas have been paved over and filled in with roads, dams and other big infrastructure projects, the legacy of trillions of dollars spent to lift the economy from a severe downturn caused by the bursting of a real estate bubble in the late 1980s. During those nearly two decades, Japan accumulated the largest public debt in the developed world - totaling 180 percent of its $5.5 trillion economy - *while failing to generate a convincing recovery.*

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/asia/06iht-japan.1.19983822.html


Come now, you cannot spend your way out of a recession want to know why? the reason is simple, you have to have the money in order to do so.  First,  the US has little industrial base left and is  a  service based , import reliant economy.  When your in debt,  you have to BORROW money to spend it, the falacy is that these construction jobs are temporary jobs and  do not create a long term tax structure that pays back the money borrowed in order to pay for them.  John F. Kenndy knew this,  Reagan knew this and yes even Bill Clinton knew this.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 5, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



Why would you care?  You wouldn't.  The statement shows up the shallowness of your wrong beliefs.  But you won't correct them.

Why should you care?  Because she is right and it is a good indication your beliefs are erroneous in the extreme.


----------



## Rambunctious (Feb 5, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> All insults and no substance, why am I not surprized



I think it comes down to what Jack said, they can't handle the truth.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 6, 2010)

Most of the deficit problems are built in problems caused by Republicans.  Bush's tax cuts and the resultant loss of revenue, the Iraq war, the unfunded Medicare part D, not to mention interest on the debt accumulated mostly by Reagan and the Bushes.  

I know, reality sucks.

It's a great game the Republicans have going.  When a Republican is president, they run up the debt on their pet interests, and then each time a Democrat gets into the whitehouse the Republicans start hysterical handwringing about the deficit and the debt and put it on the Democrat to fix it.  This of course, if successful, kills the Democrats chances of doing anything with Democratic interests.

Maybe the way for Democrats to break that cycle IS to say fuck it!  we're going address our concerns, it's our turn, and when a Republican gets back into the whitehouse WE'LL be the ones crying fiscal responsibility and force the GOP to put its borrow and spend agenda for its own interests on hold.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 6, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Most of the deficit problems are built in problems caused by Republicans.  Bush's tax cuts and the resultant loss of revenue, the Iraq war, the unfunded Medicare part D, not to mention interest on the debt accumulated mostly by Reagan and the Bushes.
> 
> I know, reality sucks.
> 
> ...



   

Obama's one year DEFICIT is equal to almost any 2 of Reagan's total budget!!

 




And we're going to lose our AAA Credit rating becuase of Obama and Pelosi



Um, that's not funny.

Yeah the Dems are too restrained, that's gotta be it


----------



## jeffrockit (Feb 13, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...


----------



## rdean (Feb 13, 2010)

Zander said:


> The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007. That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion. I was disgusted with that., there is simply no reason to spend more than you take in year after year after year. NONE.  But it is getting far worse thanks to the Democrat Congress.
> 
> The next year 2008,  under the Pelosi-Reid Democratic Congress, the deficit shot up to $458 billion. The next year, in 2009, it was a mind-boggling $1.4 trillion.
> 
> ...



Bush left out the cost of both wars in his budgets and congress accepted it.  Obama presented an "honest" budget and suddenly Republicans are screaming for his head.  

Do Republicans prefer being lied to?  Seems like it.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 13, 2010)

rdean said:


> Do Republicans prefer being lied to?  Seems like it.




Well, they do tend to be religious...


----------



## asaratis (Feb 14, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...


That is evidence that you refuse to acknowledge historical fact.  Socialism has failed every time it has been tried...and the liberals want to try it again.   This fact of life seems beyond your comprehension.  You are part of the problem here.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.  The poor bastards do not know that they are STUPID!



NYcarbineer said:


> Most of the deficit problems are built in problems caused by Republicans.  Bush's tax cuts and the resultant loss of revenue, the Iraq war, the unfunded Medicare part D, not to mention interest on the debt accumulated mostly by Reagan and the Bushes.
> 
> I know, reality sucks.
> 
> ...



Deficit problems are caused by spending foolishly.  Spending (foolishly or not) is controlled by Congress (when Presidential vetoes are not implemented).  Congress has been controlled by mentally deranged Democrats ever since Nancy Pelosi took the seat of Speaker.  The direct cause of our current deficit growth and drive toward heavier taxation (an economy growth killer) is the unfortunate reality that the Alpha Bitch Pelosi and the Alpha Prick Reid are in control of Congress.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 14, 2010)

asaratis said:


> Deficit problems are caused by spending foolishly.  Spending (foolishly or not) is controlled by Congress (when Presidential vetoes are not implemented).  Congress has been controlled by mentally deranged Democrats ever since Nancy Pelosi took the seat of Speaker.  The direct cause of our current deficit growth and drive toward heavier taxation (an economy growth killer) is the unfortunate reality that the Alpha Bitch Pelosi and the Alpha Prick Reid are in control of Congress.



The Hastert-Frist Congress wasn't so innocent either.



> Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
> 
> The Washington Monthly


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 14, 2010)

asaratis said:


> Liberalism is a mental disorder.  The poor bastards do not know that they are STUPID!




Then tell the blacks and the women to thank the crazies they can vote.

Pelosi and Reid don't control congress.


The people who keep voting them in do.


If America is collapsing, it's because of the American people, who still have the ability to change it yet do nothing.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 14, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2007794 said:
			
		

> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Liberalism is a mental disorder.  The poor bastards do not know that they are STUPID!
> ...



Today's Liberals have about as much in common with the liberals of yesteryear as todays Greens have in common with Collards or Mustards.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 14, 2010)

Then they're not liberals. Calling themselves such doesn't make them so any more than Lucifer is the Lord because he declares himself to be so.


Instead of spitting on the name of the ideals and ideology that this nation was founded upon, why don't you call those people out on their lies and stand up for true liberalism?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 14, 2010)

Because when I call them "communists" everyone jumps up and down and tells me I dont know what a communist is.
Arguing about labels is about as much a waste of time as anything.  I'd prefer to bash their ideas and show them for the failures they have proven to be.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 14, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Because when I call them "communists" everyone jumps up and down and tells me I dont know what a communist is.



Because they're not and you don't.



> Arguing about labels is about as much a waste of time as anything.  I'd prefer to bash their ideas and show them for the failures they have proven to be.




But you don't. You attack liberals because of what statists Keynesians due.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 14, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > No amount of fairy dust, unicorn rides, and "Hopeychangey" feelings can hide these facts. These aren't just abstract numbers on a graph. This is grotesque government spending - and the tax increases that inevitably accompany such spending will only kill jobs. That is precisely what we don't need right now.
> ...



Minor problem. That spending COMES OUT OF YOUR POCKET IDIOT.


----------



## Zander (Feb 15, 2010)

rdean said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007. That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion. I was disgusted with that., there is simply no reason to spend more than you take in year after year after year. NONE.  But it is getting far worse thanks to the Democrat Congress.
> ...


Congress controls spending, not the Executive. The budget numbers on my chart are ACTUAL, not projected.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 15, 2010)

Zander said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



You've the actual budget numbers for 2020?


----------



## Zander (Feb 15, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2010786 said:
			
		

> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



The blue numbers are actual along with 2008 and 2009. The rest of the Orange numbers are projected budgets - they represent the new MINIMUM level of spending that tax and spend democrat Congress is proposing.  History has shown that the US Government never spends less than the budget......


----------



## Full-Auto (Feb 15, 2010)

Zander said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2010786 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting graph  In case I missed it would you be kind enough to post the link.  I participate on another board, and this would be huge.  Thanks


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 15, 2010)

Zander said:


> The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007. That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion. I was disgusted with that., there is simply no reason to spend more than you take in year after year after year. NONE.  But it is getting far worse thanks to the Democrat Congress.
> 
> The next year 2008,  under the Pelosi-Reid Democratic Congress, the deficit shot up to $458 billion. The next year, in 2009, it was a mind-boggling $1.4 trillion.
> 
> ...





Why the hell is the 2007 budget considered Republican and the 2008 budget Democrat? Both houses were run by the Dems both years, and the White House by Bush in both years. Did they just pick that delineating mark because it makes Republicans look better?


----------



## Full-Auto (Feb 15, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007. That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion. I was disgusted with that., there is simply no reason to spend more than you take in year after year after year. NONE.  But it is getting far worse thanks to the Democrat Congress.
> ...



ask yourself one question.  Obama just submitted his budget.   Then what are we operating under right now.  EXTENSIONS?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 15, 2010)

Full-Auto said:


> what are we operating under right now.


The FY 2010 budget, which was passed last year.


----------



## Full-Auto (Feb 15, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > what are we operating under right now.
> ...





you answered your own question.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 15, 2010)

Full-Auto said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...




I thought it was EXTENSIONS. make up your mind


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2010)

Hmmm.........  WW2. Very high tax rate. Massive deficit spending. Taxes remained high into the early sixties. And we made no progress from '41 through '65, correct?

The present tax structure is just another way for the Conservatives to achieve their goal of the destruction of the American Middle Class.


----------



## Zander (Feb 15, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007. That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion. I was disgusted with that., there is simply no reason to spend more than you take in year after year after year. NONE.  But it is getting far worse thanks to the Democrat Congress.
> ...


The Budget for 2007 was submitted and approved in 2006 - by the Republican Congress. The tax and spend democrats took over in 2007 and submitted their first budget in 2008.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 16, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Bush had an MBA...next...


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 16, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



Kerry won 2 purple hearts.
Next.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Feb 16, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Hmmm.........  WW2. Very high tax rate. Massive deficit spending. Taxes remained high into the early sixties. And we made no progress from '41 through '65, correct?
> 
> The present tax structure is just another way for the Conservatives to achieve their goal of the destruction of the American Middle Class.


1933-1941 - the longest and worst depression ever seen in recorded history, and modern historians are uncovering how FDR's inept handling just made the situation worse. WWII the USA gears up and fights in both the Pacific and Europe. Post WWII - the only intact industrial bases are in the US and USSR, everything else was shattered by the war, so the US has a huge boom because everyone needs our goods. 

Seems Rocky that you are as ignorant about history as you are about science.


----------



## Polk (Feb 16, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> You don't spend your way out of a recession.  It's never worked and it never will.  It's that simple.  It's a reckless policy.



It's never worked... except for all the times it did.


----------



## Polk (Feb 16, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Well, I see problem one. You think a business background means you know something about the economy as a whole.


----------



## Polk (Feb 16, 2010)

Zander said:


> Put down the bong comrade. Higher taxes destroy jobs. It is a fact. Jimmy Carter believed the raising taxes was good and we were rewarded with 21% interest rates and high unemployment.  Then Reagan cut taxes that helped to create 21 million new jobs and ushered in 20 years of prosperity. Not to mention increased revenue massively.



So much wrong with your post...

1. Carter didn't "believe raising taxes was good". In fact, both of the major revenue bills passed during the Carter administration were tax cuts (Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977 increased the standard deduction and Revenue Act of 1978 cut personal and corporate income taxes, reduced the number of tax brackets, increased the standard deduction again, and cut capital gains taxes).
2. Even if he had increased taxes, taxes aren't what controls interest rates.
3. The 21 million new jobs in the 1980s was the smallest job growth in four decades.
4. Revenue didn't increase until near the middle of Reagan's tenure, and that's only because he signed a massive tax hike. The cuts at the beginning of his first term cause revenue to plummet.


----------



## Polk (Feb 16, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



FDR wasn't an epic failure. Compare industrial output, agricultural output, and unemployment in 1932 and 1936. All were significantly after his first term. Why did the economy retreat somewhat during his second term? Because he listened to idiots like you and slashed spending in an attempt to balance the budget.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 16, 2010)

Polk said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > You don't spend your way out of a recession.  It's never worked and it never will.  It's that simple.  It's a reckless policy.
> ...



Which was zero.
Please post one time when this worked.
It is impossible. Gov't cannot spend money because it has none.  It can only take from one person and give to another.  You see this road getting built but do not see that business closing because of higher taxes.  Or lack of access to capital.
It is a shell game.
But then again, you still believe in the "multiplier effect."  And Santa Claus.


----------



## Polk (Feb 16, 2010)

It's worked at least twice in our own nation's history. 1933-1936 and 1940-1945.


----------



## Zander (Feb 16, 2010)

Polk said:


> It's worked at least twice in our own nation's history. 1933-1936 and 1940-1945.



Pass the Dutchie on the left hand side......






Must be some sweet ganja you smoke to continue to believe that fairy tale! Maybe you can hit the trifecta?! Smoke a huge doobie, while riding a rainbow colored Unicorn while riding on the Obama hopey-changey trail.  Keep it copacetic............


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 17, 2010)

Yeah.  What Zander said.  You have cited two examples where such spending did not work.
We can add Japan in the 1990s where the gov't passed stimulus after stimulus and kept rates at near zero and the economu is still in recession.


----------



## RodISHI (Feb 17, 2010)

I think the American taxpayer needs everyone out of their back pocket.



> Canadian company seeks U.S. government loan guarantees for cross-Strait power cable -- Port Angeles Port Townsend Sequim Forks Jefferson County Clallam County Olympic Peninsula Daily NEWS
> 
> A Canadian company wants the U.S. Department of Energy to guarantee up to $484 million in loans to help cover the cost of a nearly $1 billion Juan de Fuca underwater cable project from Victoria to its likely Port Angeles terminus: a substation next to Peninsula College.


----------



## Polk (Feb 17, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Yeah.  What Zander said.  You have cited two examples where such spending did not work.
> We can add Japan in the 1990s where the gov't passed stimulus after stimulus and kept rates at near zero and the economu is still in recession.



Yeah... totally didn't work...

1933 to 1936 
GDP: Increased from 56.4 billion to 83.8 billion
Personal consumption: Increased from 45.9 billion to 66.2 billion
Unemployment: Fell from 25% to 15%

1940 to 1945
GDP: Increased from 101.4 billion to 223.1 billion
Personal consumption: Increased from 71.3 billion to 120 billion
Unemployment: Fell from 15% to 5%

And you know why Japan never got out of it's hole? Just as the economy began to recover, they'd listen to idiots like you and slash spending to the bone in an attempt to balance the budget.


----------



## Polk (Feb 17, 2010)

Zander said:


> Must be some sweet ganja you smoke to continue to believe that fairy tale! Maybe you can hit the trifecta?! Smoke a huge doobie, while riding a rainbow colored Unicorn while riding on the Obama hopey-changey trail.  Keep it copacetic............



I have to apologize for only having facts on my side. They can't stand up to your name-calling.


----------



## Zander (Feb 17, 2010)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah.  What Zander said.  You have cited two examples where such spending did not work.
> ...



You attribute all economic improvement to government spending?  You really live in a fantasy world.


----------



## Polk (Feb 18, 2010)

Zander said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



We also have periods where your preferred policies were followed (1929 to 1932 and 1936-1939). The economy was much worse in those years. Of course, you'll come up with another lame dodge, because you sure as hell can't support your claims with evidence.


----------



## Zander (Feb 18, 2010)

Polk said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


You really enjoy cherry picking data that prop up your bad ideas.   

Here are the numbers for a REAL economic recovery. Ronald Reagan instituted CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC POLICIES -  sweeping economic reforms,  deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. The marginal rate tax cuts increased incentives to work and stimulated growth. These were fundamental policy changes that provided the foundation for the "Great Expansion" that began in December 1982.  Nothing that FDR did comes even close to these results. The numbers don't lie, it is useful idiots like Obama and his cronies that do.  







The economic record of those 17 years is nothing short of remarkable.  The United States  experienced two of the longest and strongest expansions in our history back to back. They were interrupted only by a shallow eight-month downturn in 1990-91. You can thank CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES  for this massive boom. FDR had 16 years of massive economic upheavals and gyrations due to government intervention. His economic policies are perfect example of what NOT to do.  3 good years followed by 7 bad years then another 4 more bad years is not good economic policy. 

Government does not create jobs, the private sector does. Every dollar that the Government spends is confiscated from productive companies and individuals. Government interference is what causes recessions and depression. The only solution to our present dilemma is to cut spending, cut tax rates, and to get government out of the way. Capitalism has not failed, CRONY CAPITALISM has.


----------



## Polk (Feb 18, 2010)

I didn't cherry-pick a damn thing. You claim that because there is no evidence to support your point. You show that in your own post, when touting the 1980s and 1990s as evidence of a "real economic recovery". It's bullshit on several levels. Reagan is responsible for growth a decade after he left office, but Bush wasn't responsible for decline while he was in office? Guess it's really easy to be all about personal responsibility when everything you do is someone else's fault.

Also, contrary to your claims, the 1980s were not a boom time. Not only was economic performance more sluggish than during the New Deal, it was also more sluggish than it was in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 18, 2010)

Economic growth was more sluggish in the 80s than in the 70s???  WTF?  I want some of what you're smoking.
You obviously werent there.  Remember "stagflation"?? Ring any bells?

You have zero credibility.  You are about in the same league as Chris and Jake Starkey--about to be laughed off this board.


----------



## Zander (Feb 19, 2010)

Polk said:


> I didn't cherry-pick a damn thing. You claim that because there is no evidence to support your point. You show that in your own post, when touting the 1980s and 1990s as evidence of a "real economic recovery". It's bullshit on several levels. Reagan is responsible for growth a decade after he left office, but Bush wasn't responsible for decline while he was in office? Guess it's really easy to be all about personal responsibility when everything you do is someone else's fault.
> 
> Also, contrary to your claims, the 1980s were not a boom time. Not only was economic performance more sluggish than during the New Deal, it was also more sluggish than it was in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.



The numbers don't lie Polk.  The 1930's and 1940's up until WW2 were the time of the great depression, extended by FDR's socialist policies.  Because of FDR's lousy economic policies and heavy handed intervention,  the economy had massive up and down swings and the depression was extended by at least a decade.  You cherry picked the good years of that horrible era and conveniently left off the bad ones. That is what partisan hacks who lack a grasp of historical facts tend to do when defeated by facts and logic. I have proven with irrefutable data that Reagan's policies ushered in 17 consecutive years of prosperity   You just do not want to accept reality because it flies in the face of your political ideology.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 19, 2010)

And with those two posts I predict we won't hear from Polk any more on this subject.
Truth to liberals is like garlic to vampires.


----------



## Polk (Feb 19, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Economic growth was more sluggish in the 80s than in the 70s???  WTF?  I want some of what you're smoking.
> You obviously werent there.  Remember "stagflation"?? Ring any bells?
> 
> You have zero credibility.  You are about in the same league as Chris and Jake Starkey--about to be laughed off this board.



I love the drug theme. That's all you've got to go on, as American economic performance in the 1970s was much better than the 1980s.

Job growth was higher in the 1970s (increased by around 25%, versus 15% in the 1980s), as was real GDP growth (38% in the 1970s versus 35% in the 1980s).


----------



## Polk (Feb 19, 2010)

Zander said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't cherry-pick a damn thing. You claim that because there is no evidence to support your point. You show that in your own post, when touting the 1980s and 1990s as evidence of a "real economic recovery". It's bullshit on several levels. Reagan is responsible for growth a decade after he left office, but Bush wasn't responsible for decline while he was in office? Guess it's really easy to be all about personal responsibility when everything you do is someone else's fault.
> ...



You're right, the numbers don't lie. And the numbers support what I've stated. The economy didn't experience massive up and down swings. It experienced two. The first was an upward swing as government spending increased and the downward swing came as the government cut spending in an attempt to balance the budget. That's consistent with my argument. 

Furthermore, you call me a hack even though I've supported my argument with objective data, while you're only source has been cherry-picked numbers from right-wing PR shops. I don't need to deny reality to support my political beliefs. My beliefs are supported by that which is objectively true. That you're willing to distort the record in an attempt to validate your beliefs reflects poorly on you.


----------



## Polk (Feb 19, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> And with those two posts I predict we won't hear from Polk any more on this subject.
> Truth to liberals is like garlic to vampires.



If that's the case, why am I the only one telling the truth?


----------



## Zander (Feb 19, 2010)

Polk said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


Your argument is that stimulus works. It doesn't. It is a temporary band-aid that causes more problems than solutions. As soon as the false stimulus is taken away the economy fails again and all we have to show for it is more debt.  Your data PROVES that. Stimulus programs are unsustainable and inevitably end badly. You can't spend your way out of a recession.  By contrast, Reagan's Fiscally conservative policies initiated 17 continuous years of sustained prosperity. Thanks for making this so easy.

PS - I apologize for calling you a partisan hack.


----------



## Polk (Feb 19, 2010)

That argument makes no sense. If Reagan's "fiscally conservative" policies resulted in 17 years, why was the growth not harmed by the three rounds of tax increases?


----------



## Zander (Feb 19, 2010)

Polk said:


> That argument makes no sense. If Reagan's "fiscally conservative" policies resulted in 17 years, why was the growth not harmed by the three rounds of tax increases?



Try to stay focused. Marginal tax rates are not what we are discussing. 

You took the position that massive deficit spending by the gov't in the form of "stimulus" is helpful for the economy.  I've shown you that they are not effective in the long term.  If you want to discuss tax rates, I'd be happy to shatter any myths you hold. High tax rates inevitably result in lower revenue for the treasury. 

Do I think the world will end if the top marginal rates increase to 40% after the Bush tax cuts expire? No, but it will not help spur economic growth or treasury receipts. It will extend the downturn. The answer is to get goverment the hell out of the way! Let capitalism work. Cut corporate tax rates, cut personal income taxes and CUT SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!!  The economy will bounce back on it's own. It is not the govermnents job to micromanage the economy or peoples lives.


----------



## The T (Feb 19, 2010)

Zander said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > That argument makes no sense. If Reagan's "fiscally conservative" policies resulted in 17 years, why was the growth not harmed by the three rounds of tax increases?
> ...


 
How much more SIMPLE could it be? -NO- Government has ever SPENT ITSELF INTO PROSPERITY? It's *IMPOSSIBLE*.


----------



## Zander (Feb 19, 2010)

Polk said:


> That argument makes no sense. If Reagan's "fiscally conservative" policies resulted in 17 years, why was the growth not harmed by the three rounds of tax increases?



CHeck this graph out.....





Marginal tax rates dropped from 70% down to under 30% during the Reagan era.  Hence the 17 year sustained expansion. Even minor increases couldn't stop the momentum. Obama could turn his entire term around if he cut taxes, cut spending,and told the American people to take care of themselves. It is not the govt's job to play nursemaid to it citizenry.


----------



## The T (Feb 19, 2010)

Zander said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > That argument makes no sense. If Reagan's "fiscally conservative" policies resulted in 17 years, why was the growth not harmed by the three rounds of tax increases?
> ...


 
Speaks For Itself.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 20, 2010)

Zander said:


> High tax rates inevitably result in lower revenue for the treasury.




Define: high

It would seem there'd be a 'sweet spot' in a given economy where the treasury's income from taxation would be maximized.


----------



## California Girl (Feb 20, 2010)

Why does no one ever mention the depression of 1920? Perhaps because no one knows about it because we recovered so quickly? Anyone know why we recovered so fast?


----------



## Polk (Feb 20, 2010)

Zander said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > That argument makes no sense. If Reagan's "fiscally conservative" policies resulted in 17 years, why was the growth not harmed by the three rounds of tax increases?
> ...



Spending also increased over that period. So what part of his policy was "fiscally conservative"?


----------



## Polk (Feb 20, 2010)

Zander said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > That argument makes no sense. If Reagan's "fiscally conservative" policies resulted in 17 years, why was the growth not harmed by the three rounds of tax increases?
> ...



Those numbers are really misleading. The top line rates dropped, but at the same time, a lot of loopholes were removed. No one was really ever paying 70%.


----------



## Zander (Feb 20, 2010)

Polk said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


Oh yeah, sure they weren't.  

Face it Polk, you're wrong. Stimulus spending does not work in the long run and your own examples make that brutally clear. What needs to happen is for Obama and the government to get the hell out of the way. Stop this crazy spending. Leave income taxes alone or, better yet, lower them. Lower the corporate tax rate, we have the highest ratre in the world. Get out of the way, stop screwing things up, and the economy will take care of itself. 

PS:  We don't need government telling us how to eat, how to breath, what time to go to bed, and what doctor we can see. Get the fuck out of our lives.


----------



## Zander (Feb 20, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Why does no one ever mention the depression of 1920? Perhaps because no one knows about it because we recovered so quickly? Anyone know why we recovered so fast?



Because we let the economy take care of itself?


----------



## Zander (Feb 20, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2027077 said:
			
		

> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > High tax rates inevitably result in lower revenue for the treasury.
> ...



There is. The concept is known as the "Laffer Curve". 

Personally, I think that an income tax rate higher than 15% is counterproductive.  As it stands now, before I make any transactions for my business or in my personal life, I look at the tax ramifications first.  At 15%- I wouldn't worry about it -but at 35% I do. Lower tax rates to 15% and you'd have a BOOMING economy. Cut government spending and you'd restore confidence. Stop trying to ram a bad healthcare bill down our throats and the economy would literally take off.  Why would anyone even consider hiring a new person now? It is too uncertain. The economy doesn't like uncertainty. 

Get government off our backs and we'd all have the ability to take care of ourselves and the people we love.


----------



## Polk (Feb 20, 2010)

Zander said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



They weren't. Just like no corporations are actually paying our current corporate income tax at the full rate.


----------



## Polk (Feb 20, 2010)

Zander said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2027077 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Art Laffer should be stripped of his degrees for being such a massive fraud. For starters, his "creation" is actually a rephrasing of an idea already put forward by Keynes (and one that can be traced back to Ibn Khaldun).

Also, you can think that number all you want, but that doesn't make it true. And the research literature shows the revenue peak not only occurs at a point higher than 15%, it occurs at one above our current rates.


----------



## Zander (Feb 20, 2010)

Polk said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2027077 said:
> ...



You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your word for it, you have a habit of making blanket statements with no proof.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 20, 2010)

Polk said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2027077 said:
> ...




um....


don't most economists build on ideas already forwarded?


You know, I'm pretty sure that's why the biggest school of thought is known as _neo_classical- because it's built atop classical lines of thought.

In the physical sciences, this is known as standing on the shoulders of giants or simply not being a moron and trying to reinvent to wheel when all you need is a stronger axle.


----------



## Zander (Feb 20, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2027780 said:
			
		

> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Indeed. Laffer himself does not even claim to have invented the concept, attributing it to 14th century Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun  and to Keynes . Obviously Keynes should be stripped of his credentials too, he is a thief - right Polk?


----------



## Polk (Feb 20, 2010)

Zander said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



No proof? I've been the only one providing hard numbers in this thread.


----------



## Polk (Feb 20, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2027780 said:
			
		

> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Yes, researchers build on the work of others. They don't pivot and claim the work as their own.


----------



## Polk (Feb 20, 2010)

Zander said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2027780 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Keynes didn't run around calling it the "Keynes Curve".


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 20, 2010)

I dont think Laffer ran around calling it the Laffer Curve either.  Someone else gave it that name.
But dont let facts bother you.  They never have before.


----------



## Zander (Feb 20, 2010)

Polk said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2027780 said:
> ...



You see to regularly spew random nonsense without doing any research and with absolutely no proof or corroboration. 

 It would have taken you less than 30 seconds to know that Laffer never named it the "laffer curve". He explained the concept so well that others dubbed it the" Laffer curve", not him. You sure are lazy!


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 21, 2010)

Zander said:


> The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007. That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion. I was disgusted with that., there is simply no reason to spend more than you take in year after year after year. NONE.  But it is getting far worse thanks to the Democrat Congress.
> 
> The next year 2008,  under the Pelosi-Reid Democratic Congress, the deficit shot up to $458 billion. The next year, in 2009, it was a mind-boggling $1.4 trillion.
> 
> ...



The biggest problem with that fiscally irresponsible budget is paying for two fiscally irresponsible wars and using a fiscally irresponsible tax cut to pay for them


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 21, 2010)

Actually none of those things are responsible.  But you knew that already.


----------



## Polk (Feb 21, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Actually none of those things are responsible.  But you knew that already.



The Bush tax cuts alone are the source of over half of the deficit.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 21, 2010)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Actually none of those things are responsible.  But you knew that already.
> ...



Escuse me?  I couldn't hear what you said because it's your ass talking.


----------



## Polk (Feb 21, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



"Rabbi", don't you have another rant to go on about how Obama is a tool of the Rothschild family?


----------



## Zander (Feb 21, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007. That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion. I was disgusted with that., there is simply no reason to spend more than you take in year after year after year. NONE.  But it is getting far worse thanks to the Democrat Congress.
> ...



Tax revenues increased with the Bush tax cuts as the GDP increased from 9.7 trillion to 14.4 trillion -  the problem is not revenue - it is SPENDING. 

Congress controls spending. When Congress is run by Democrats deficits BALOOON larger than Hilary Clinton's cankles. Democrats simply can't help themselves, they are crack addicted spending whores. The figures don't lie leftwinger.


----------



## Polk (Feb 21, 2010)

Nominal revenue increased because the economy grew, just like it does every year under normal conditions. The relevant measure is distance between peaks in real revenue (since if the economy is growing, real revenue will peak every year). The distance between peaks after the Bush tax cuts was the longest ever.


----------



## Zander (Feb 21, 2010)

Polk said:


> Nominal revenue increased because the economy grew, just like it does every year under normal conditions. The relevant measure is distance between peaks in real revenue (since if the economy is growing, real revenue will peak every year). The distance between peaks after the Bush tax cuts was the longest ever.



Once again our LAZY friend Polk makes a statement with no proof....Sorry Polk, that's not how it works here. You need to provide links, graphs, data to support you arguments. Why is that so hard for you?


----------



## asaratis (Feb 21, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2007794 said:
			
		

> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Liberalism is a mental disorder.  The poor bastards do not know that they are STUPID!
> ...


It is not the people that count.  It is the people that count the people and count the votes of the people that count.  The government is counting the people and their votes.

Pelosi and Reid do control things during their terms in Congress.  Until they are removed, they are in control.  It is beginning to sink in to a lot of Americans just how much damage a runaway Congress can do in a year or two.  If we can stop this train before it results in a dictatorship, the system will have worked.



			
				&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2007992 said:
			
		

> Then they're not liberals. Calling themselves such doesn't make them so any more than Lucifer is the Lord because he declares himself to be so.
> 
> 
> Instead of spitting on the name of the ideals and ideology that this nation was founded upon, why don't you call those people out on their lies and stand up for true liberalism?


I agree.  True liberalism is what some conservatives stand for today.

*Wolves in sheep's clothing* comes to mind when people label themselves.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 21, 2010)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



You really need to quit talking out of your ass because no one can understand you.

You also need to stop making stuff up.  Of course if you did that you would become a GOP conservative.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 21, 2010)

Zander said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Nominal revenue increased because the economy grew, just like it does every year under normal conditions. The relevant measure is distance between peaks in real revenue (since if the economy is growing, real revenue will peak every year). The distance between peaks after the Bush tax cuts was the longest ever.
> ...



He can't.  Because he is wrong.




Looks like total revenue increased something like 25% from 2000 to 2008.  Too bad spending increased more that under the Democratic Congress.


----------



## Zander (Feb 21, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


 Maybe if lazy ass Polk stopped copying and pasting from the leftwingnut websites he plagarizes he'd learn a thing or two.    I don't think I've ever seen him back up his bullshit with factual data. Maybe he's actually Obama?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 21, 2010)

They all do that.  There are certain beliefs that are unshakable.  Bush lost the 2000 election.  Bush lied so we would invade Iraq.  Bush's tax cuts affected the wealthy only.  The middle class is losing ground.  Republicans only represent the interests of the rich.  etc etc ad nauseam.
Every one of those statements has been disproven so many times one wonders why there is debate.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 21, 2010)

Zander said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > That argument makes no sense. If Reagan's "fiscally conservative" policies resulted in 17 years, why was the growth not harmed by the three rounds of tax increases?
> ...



Reagan lowered the top rates and produced massive peacetime deficits and accumulated hundreds of billions of debt that we effectively still pay interest on.  Republicans love to cut taxes, increase spending, and then blame the consequences on the Democrats who are supposed to clean it up.  Clinton DID clean it up, but as soon as the Republicans got him out of the way, they were off to the borrow and spend races again:

The Bush legacy:

Republican tax cuts, not paid for.
Republican war, not paid for.
Republican defense spending increases, not paid for.
Republican prescription drug plan, not paid for.


----------



## Meister (Feb 21, 2010)

Where's your list with barry?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 21, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Once again facts defeat the Left's talking points.  Here is a chart of Federal revenue.  Note that from 1980 to about 1990 revenue increased by almost 90%




Spending, driven by Democratic Congresses, accounts for the deficits.


----------



## Zander (Feb 21, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



They conveniently forget that  "Congress controls spending" regardless of who holds the Executive branch. Democrat controlled Congress' always spend far too much money. We are experiencing it now.  $1.6 Trillion this year alone......and likely to be revised upward!! Wake up liberals, you're only fucking yourselves.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 21, 2010)

Zander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Hmmm...Tax revenues increased?   And yet the deficit doubled from $5 Trillion to $10 Trillion? 
We are still adding to the deficit through those ill conceived tax cuts. 
Check your deficits........80% of our existing deficit occured while REPUBLICANS were in control.
Presidents Carter and Clinton had Ballanced Budgets
Reagan, Bush and Bush ran record deficits


----------



## Zander (Feb 21, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You're gonna have to do what intelligent people do leftiwnger - prove it. Go get the data, post it here for all to see.  You might be surprised at how wrong you are.


----------



## Ame®icano (Feb 21, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1972944 said:
			
		

> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > "When George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, he inherited peace and prosperity. The military, the Constitution and New Orleans were intact
> ...



Well, he didn't inherited it from Clinton.


----------



## Meister (Feb 21, 2010)

Zander said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Not to mention that the interest rates will be increasing.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> [
> Once again facts defeat the Left's talking points.  Here is a chart of Federal revenue.  Note that from 1980 to about 1990 revenue increased by almost 90%
> 
> 
> ...



Gee, I could have sworn I was told a few zillion times that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by massively increasing our defense spending.

Now you're telling me that the Democrats in Congress in the 80's won the Cold War?

fascinating!


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2007794 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I love this nonsenical conservative talking point.  Liberals of yesteryear?  Like when?  The 50's?  Last week I posted the Republican 1956 party platform and it was so far to the left of where modern day conservatives are, all things considered, that it was hardly recognizable as the GOP.  And OF COURSE Democrats were the party to the left of the Republicans at that time.

Sure, modern day conservatives love old timey liberalism.   Give me a break!


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2010)

Zander said:


> No amount of fairy dust, unicorn rides, and "Hopeychangey" feelings can hide these facts. These aren't just abstract numbers on a graph. This is grotesque government spending - and the tax increases that inevitably accompany such spending will only kill jobs. That is precisely what we don't need right now.
> 
> November cannot come soon enough......



In 2000 the budget debate was about what would be done with the projected future budget surpluses in the coming years.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 22, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



When faced with contradictory evidence you change the subject.  True sign of a loser.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



The subject was spending in the 80's.  The insistence was that Congress controls spending.  The insistence was that the Democratic Congress's spending in the 80's caused the deficits.

Thus, if you believe that our military buildup in the 80's won the Cold War, then it is irrefutable that the Democratic Congress with its control of spending, including military spending 

won the Cold War.

That would make Reagan a impotent bystander.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2010)

Just a note about tax cuts and revenues.

Bush's revenues did not equal 2000 revenues for 5 years, into his 2nd term.  That's with tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 22, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Actually the subject was revenue and the claim was that Bush's tax cuts decreased revenue and caused the deficit.  All shown to be false.
And your reductio ad absurdum on Reagan shows either willfull ignorance or malicious lying.  Which is it?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 22, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




Actually he makes a good point..

Did Reagan win the Cold War or was it the Democratic Congress?
Was it Reagan who brought the nation from an economic crisis or was it the Democratic Concress?

Did Reagan actually DO anything?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



My point was based on the claim that Congress controls spending.  That eliminates Reagan as the winner of the Cold War, if the Cold War was won by spending.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 22, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



The Cold War was won by the commander in chief, just like wars always are.  In this case it was Ronald Reagan.
If wars were won by spending then Obama would be the undisputed lord of the entire earth given the amount of money his budget has called for spending.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Bush cut taxes and did not pay for them.  Bush invaded Iraq and did not pay for it.  Bush signed prescription drug legislation and did not pay for it.  ALL of that added to the deficits.  Of course you could blame the Republican Congress from 2001 to 2006, if you wanted to go the Congress controls spending route.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Then I guess Obama is winning the Iraq war.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 22, 2010)

Actually on your theory he is now losing because he is cutting spending for it.  Fuckstick.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Actually on your theory he is now losing because he is cutting spending for it.  Fuckstick.



No.  He's Commander in Chief.  By your own standards Obama is winning the Iraq war.

And of course, SINCE he is winning, he is able to spend less.  That's what happens when you win wars.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 23, 2010)

Rabbi's got himself all fucked up


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 23, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Actually on your theory he is now losing because he is cutting spending for it.  Fuckstick.
> ...



Actually Bush won the Iraq war.  Obama is losing teh Afghan War.  Get your facts right.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 23, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




If Bush won the Iraq war, why are our soldiers still fighting and dying in Iraq?

We have not won and we cannot win the Iraq War of Occupation.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 23, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2035505 said:
			
		

> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



"The war is lost."  Harry Reid.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 23, 2010)

So Bush won the war and we lost it?

Make up your mind.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 23, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Actually Bush won the Iraq war.



You are a complete moron.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Actually Bush won the Iraq war.
> ...



Sez the guy with the idiotic partisan hack sig line.
Yeah, you have credibility.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 24, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2035505 said:
			
		

> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Win?

How do you take credit for a "win" in a war that we never should have fought in the first place?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 24, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2035505 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah.  I guess the Allies didn't "win" in WWI either.
You crack me up.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 24, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2035505 said:
> ...




Nice evasion.

Answer the question.

If Bush won the Iraq war, why are our soldiers still fighting and dying  in Iraq?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 24, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2039185 said:
			
		

> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



If we didnt win then why are there definite dates to withdraw?  Does that mean we lost?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 24, 2010)

> If we didnt win then why are there definite dates to withdraw?



No army has ever withdrawn without being victorious?


----------

