US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Faun]

Bill Clinton got reined in by Newt Gingrich and the GOP's Contract With America,

More like Clinton reined the GOP Congress since only changing Clinton with Bush and the same GOP Congress replaced surpluses with deficits as far as the eye can see!

The "surpluses" only occurred because of the Gingrich led Congress cutting spending...while the Dot Com Boom greatly increased revenues. At the end of the Clinton Presidency...the Dot Com Boom was OVER and so were the surpluses. Within weeks of Bush being sworn in we were officially in a recession.

The increased revenue was actually due to Clinton's tax increase on the rich which Bush ended as soon as he took over and the surpluses disappeared immediately, replaced by permanent deficits.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ed! The reason you can increase taxes is BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom! The liberal narrative that increasing taxes is what led to increased revenues is laughably simplistic yet you people keep trotting it out as "gospel"!

You're lying again, gramps. It's already been pointed out to you the tax increase came before the dot com boom. Tax revenues began increasing before the dot com boom. The deficit began falling before the dot com boom. All those also predated the GOP taking over the Congress in 1995. They all continued until 2000. The dot com boom certainly contributed to the economy; and it certainly contributed to the economic slow down which followed the bust -- but the economy began improving before the dot com boom.

 

[Faun]

Bill Clinton got reined in by Newt Gingrich and the GOP's Contract With America,

More like Clinton reined the GOP Congress since only changing Clinton with Bush and the same GOP Congress replaced surpluses with deficits as far as the eye can see!

The "surpluses" only occurred because of the Gingrich led Congress cutting spending...while the Dot Com Boom greatly increased revenues. At the end of the Clinton Presidency...the Dot Com Boom was OVER and so were the surpluses. Within weeks of Bush being sworn in we were officially in a recession.

The increased revenue was actually due to Clinton's tax increase on the rich which Bush ended as soon as he took over and the surpluses disappeared immediately, replaced by permanent deficits.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ed! The reason you can increase taxes is BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom! The liberal narrative that increasing taxes is what led to increased revenues is laughably simplistic yet you people keep trotting it out as "gospel"!

Revenue began increasing right after the 1993 tax increases, but the dot com boom didn't even begin until 1995 and wasn't really booming until 1997.

I already had this discussion with him. He apparently doesn't allow pesky facts to interfere with his delusional agenda.

 

[Faun]

The increased revenue was actually due to Clinton's tax increase on the rich which Bush ended as soon as he took over and the surpluses disappeared immediately, replaced by permanent deficits.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ed! The reason you can increase taxes is BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom! The liberal narrative that increasing taxes is what led to increased revenues is laughably simplistic yet you people keep trotting it out as "gospel"!

You must want others to smell the coffee because you can not, me boy. Or are you simply repeating the right wing economic plan. Decrease taxes, decrease taxes. Of course you are.
Problem is, me boy, that you can not show a single time when decreasing taxes in a bad economy has ever worked. But the rational world can show when it did not help, and when it generally hurt the economy. Not, me boy, because taxes went down. Now try to follow this, because generally this is where cons loose the argument. Because the rational plan has more than one component.
While you say, over and over, decrease taxes and the economy gets better, there is NO history to point to that backs it up. What rational people say is: If you increase taxes, it will do no real good, and some marginal BAD. Not enough to worry about, but a little. What will happen (now try to stay tuned in here, me boy) is that thinking people will suggest you increase SPENDING. Since politicians are pushed to try to not increase the national debt, they need to raise money to spend stimulativly via taxes. So, they see more than one component of the move (which is too complex for cons) and take the rational next (second) step and spend stimulatively. And the result, always, is increased employment and a better economy. Always.
So, there you go. I know you will be unable to comprehend this two part argument, and you will want to stay with the republican economic plan, which is decrease taxes. It is so simple, and you have been told it works. But, of course, it has not. And can not. But you are told what to believe, and you are NOT a rational organism. Rather, you are a con tool.
So, me boy, consider the next (untrue) republican talking point. If you increase taxes and spend, you will increase the national debt. Why does that never occur?? Again, you will have to make a heroic effort to follow this multi part argument. Again, you believe the one part argument provided you by the republican thought developers: If you increase spending, you will increase the national debt. So why is that a stupid and incorrect argument? For three reasons:
1. Because historically it has not increased the national debt.
2. Because stimulative spending causes increases in employment and decreases in unemployment.
3. Because increased employment increases incoming gov revenues which decreases the national debt.
Now, again, I know this is not what you have been told to believe. But it is true. And if you had a rational mind, you would check it out: THE NATIONAL DEBT ALWAYS INCREASES GREATLY WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH, AND DECREASES WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS LOW. ALWAYS.

I know. I know. Two part arguments are way to complex for the con mind, which causes you a major head ache. But truth is truth, me boy. And that is the truth. And what you are pushing is the great republican lie.
Do they pay you to post your drivel, or do you do it for free, me boy?

So when John F. Kennedy called for tax cuts back in the 1960's...that was a "right wing economic plan"?

You know what's amusing about you, Rshermr! You actually think when you come on here and lecture about economics that you sound like you know what you're talking about...when in fact you ALWAYS make an ass of yourself!

You know what is amusing about you, me boy? You do not know how to read, or to think, apparently. I did not say there was a problem with lowering prices, me boy. Not in general Now, PAY ATTENTION. I said, me boy, that you should ot cut taxes in a BAD ECONOMY. See the difference//
In the case of Kennedy, there was never a problem with lowering prices because the economy was....now, wait for it, me boy....GOOD. Unemployment was not high.
Now, see if you can follow this, me boy. Your favorite person of all time, Ronald Reagan. He had a somewhat bad economy. about 7.2$ unemployment when he took office in January of 1981. So, being a supply side economist big time, and his economic team believing in the economic theory of supply side, he lowered taxes right away. And what do you suppose happened. Good things like in Kennedy's economy? Of course not. The unemployment shot up over the next 21 months to over 10.8%. SECOND HIGHEST IN OUR HISTORY. So, with a big recession on hand, what did ronnie do? Actually what did his team do? Why, they raised taxes 11 times, me boy. Note, I said RAISED. And spent like a drunken sailor. Trippled the national debt. Spent more than all the US presidents in the history of the US Combined. And the economy thrived based on his hew found Keynesian economic principles. Thrived, me boy. Even though he was a supply side guy (can you say Reaganomics?) he used democratic Keynesian principles to fix his mess.
You are welcome, me boy. Let me know if you need more lessons.

You really are determined to show how little you know about economics...aren't you!

If the economy was "GOOD" under Kennedy...then kindly explain why a Democratic icon like him was calling for tax cuts?

What Reagan inherited wasn't a "somewhat bad economy"...what he inherited was full blown Stagflation.

As for the liberal myth that Reagan was really a tax raiser? Yes, he raised taxes 11 times during his two terms in office but anyone with half a brain who looks at those 11 tax increases and compares them to the tax cuts that Reagan made would never arrive at the conclusion that Reagan grew the economy because he increased taxes. One who also knew the history of those tax cuts would also know that one of those tax increases...the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act of 1982...was a deal between Reagan and Tip O'Neal where Reagan would sign off on raising taxes if Democrats in Congress would cut spending. Reagan kept his end of the bargain...the Democrats did not. As for the other tax increases? Most of them were increases of consumption taxes on things like cigarettes and gasoline...tax increases that pale in comparison to the tax cuts that he made to American's income taxes.

WTF? The Congress can't pass spending bills without the consent and approval of the president. If Democrats didn't keep their end of the deal, then Reagan shouldn't have signed the bills. Even worse for your rhetoric... Republicans controlled the Senate. So even if the Democrat-led House passed spending bills, the Republican-led Senate could have cut spending from the bills.

 

[Dale Smith]

And your "explanation" of why Kennedy called for tax cuts then simply underscored why tax cuts are being called for by Bill Clinton now and why it isn't a far right position only pushed by conservatives!

lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

More like Clinton reined the GOP Congress since only changing Clinton with Bush and the same GOP Congress replaced surpluses with deficits as far as the eye can see!

The "surpluses" only occurred because of the Gingrich led Congress cutting spending...while the Dot Com Boom greatly increased revenues. At the end of the Clinton Presidency...the Dot Com Boom was OVER and so were the surpluses. Within weeks of Bush being sworn in we were officially in a recession.

The increased revenue was actually due to Clinton's tax increase on the rich which Bush ended as soon as he took over and the surpluses disappeared immediately, replaced by permanent deficits.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ed! The reason you can increase taxes is BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom! The liberal narrative that increasing taxes is what led to increased revenues is laughably simplistic yet you people keep trotting it out as "gospel"!

Revenue began increasing right after the 1993 tax increases, but the dot com boom didn't even begin until 1995 and wasn't really booming until 1997.

I already had this discussion with him. He apparently doesn't allow pesky facts to interfere with his delusional agenda.

Not to be rude, but you don't have a fucking clue about what this country has done to it's people since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the massive wealth that it's shareholders of USA.INC are sitting on. The "gubermint" that you have such loyalty to and cling to like it's your momma and daddy is sitting on Trillions of dollars of wealth . Do some research on the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report). Do that and you will find that this composite for profit corporate "gubermint" owns majority stock in every Fortune 500 corporation and their subsidiaries. They own amusement parks, racetracks, golf courses, land, etc, etc. When USA.INC went bankrupt again, it was taken into receivership by the IMF which is just another banking operation that is also controlled by the same people that own the Federal Reserve bank. Your idea of how things REALLY work is so far from reality that it would take me HOURS to explain to you what has been done to us.

Why do major corporations pay little to no taxes on their profits? Because it would affect the dividends that the stockholders receive. Why are they allowed to offshore jobs? Because cheap labor and lax environmental laws pads their bottom line We are not under the protections of the U.S constitution that was done awa with when America became incorporated in 1868 and made it official in 1871 with the Act Of 1871. The debt slavery system happened in small increments but it's pretty much in place now. It's not the lack of money or resources that is the problem, it's the system that is ran by people that don't give a shit about us. We are just a human resource with diminsihing returns. They toss out just enough scraps in order to keep us on the hamster wheel. Wake the fuck up, my friend....we are not in Kansas anymore.

 

[Faun]

And your "explanation" of why Kennedy called for tax cuts then simply underscored why tax cuts are being called for by Bill Clinton now and why it isn't a far right position only pushed by conservatives!

lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

The "surpluses" only occurred because of the Gingrich led Congress cutting spending...while the Dot Com Boom greatly increased revenues. At the end of the Clinton Presidency...the Dot Com Boom was OVER and so were the surpluses. Within weeks of Bush being sworn in we were officially in a recession.

The increased revenue was actually due to Clinton's tax increase on the rich which Bush ended as soon as he took over and the surpluses disappeared immediately, replaced by permanent deficits.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ed! The reason you can increase taxes is BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom! The liberal narrative that increasing taxes is what led to increased revenues is laughably simplistic yet you people keep trotting it out as "gospel"!

Revenue began increasing right after the 1993 tax increases, but the dot com boom didn't even begin until 1995 and wasn't really booming until 1997.

I already had this discussion with him. He apparently doesn't allow pesky facts to interfere with his delusional agenda.

Not to be rude, but you don't have a fucking clue about what this country has done to it's people since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the massive wealth that it's shareholders of USA.INC are sitting on. The "gubermint" that you have such loyalty to and cling to like it's your momma and daddy is sitting on Trillions of dollars of wealth . Do some research on the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report). Do that and you will find that this composite for profit corporate "gubermint" owns majority stock in every Fortune 500 corporation and their subsidiaries. They own amusement parks, racetracks, golf courses, land, etc, etc. When USA.INC went bankrupt again, it was taken into receivership by the IMF which is just another banking operation that is also controlled by the same people that own the Federal Reserve bank. Your idea of how things REALLY work is so far from reality that it would take me HOURS to explain to you what has been done to us.

Why do major corporations pay little to no taxes on their profits? Because it would affect the dividends that the stockholders receive. Why are they allowed to offshore jobs? Because cheap labor and lax environmental laws pads their bottom line We are not under the protections of the U.S constitution that was done awa with when America became incorporated in 1868 and made it official in 1871 with the Act Of 1871. The debt slavery system happened in small increments but it's pretty much in place now. It's not the lack of money or resources that is the problem, it's the system that is ran by people that don't give a shit about us. We are just a human resource with diminsihing returns. They toss out just enough scraps in order to keep us on the hamster wheel. Wake the fuck up, my friend....we are not in Kansas anymore.

Tell it to someone who was talking about that. I care not that you feel compelled to throw non-sequiturs in my direction. If you want to respond to what I posted, feel free. Otherwise, fuck off.

 

[Dale Smith]

And your "explanation" of why Kennedy called for tax cuts then simply underscored why tax cuts are being called for by Bill Clinton now and why it isn't a far right position only pushed by conservatives!

lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

The increased revenue was actually due to Clinton's tax increase on the rich which Bush ended as soon as he took over and the surpluses disappeared immediately, replaced by permanent deficits.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ed! The reason you can increase taxes is BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom! The liberal narrative that increasing taxes is what led to increased revenues is laughably simplistic yet you people keep trotting it out as "gospel"!

Revenue began increasing right after the 1993 tax increases, but the dot com boom didn't even begin until 1995 and wasn't really booming until 1997.

I already had this discussion with him. He apparently doesn't allow pesky facts to interfere with his delusional agenda.

Not to be rude, but you don't have a fucking clue about what this country has done to it's people since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the massive wealth that it's shareholders of USA.INC are sitting on. The "gubermint" that you have such loyalty to and cling to like it's your momma and daddy is sitting on Trillions of dollars of wealth . Do some research on the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report). Do that and you will find that this composite for profit corporate "gubermint" owns majority stock in every Fortune 500 corporation and their subsidiaries. They own amusement parks, racetracks, golf courses, land, etc, etc. When USA.INC went bankrupt again, it was taken into receivership by the IMF which is just another banking operation that is also controlled by the same people that own the Federal Reserve bank. Your idea of how things REALLY work is so far from reality that it would take me HOURS to explain to you what has been done to us.

Why do major corporations pay little to no taxes on their profits? Because it would affect the dividends that the stockholders receive. Why are they allowed to offshore jobs? Because cheap labor and lax environmental laws pads their bottom line We are not under the protections of the U.S constitution that was done awa with when America became incorporated in 1868 and made it official in 1871 with the Act Of 1871. The debt slavery system happened in small increments but it's pretty much in place now. It's not the lack of money or resources that is the problem, it's the system that is ran by people that don't give a shit about us. We are just a human resource with diminsihing returns. They toss out just enough scraps in order to keep us on the hamster wheel. Wake the fuck up, my friend....we are not in Kansas anymore.

Tell it to someone who was talking about that. I care not that you feel compelled to throw non-sequiturs in my direction. If you want to respond to what I posted, feel free. Otherwise, fuck off.

Income taxes or any other tax doesn't mean shit...you seem to think that if taxes were higher that you would benefit...you are 100 percent wrong. I just gave you a starting point to research about the type of wealth that is being amassed off of our backs.

 

[Faun]

lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ed! The reason you can increase taxes is BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom! The liberal narrative that increasing taxes is what led to increased revenues is laughably simplistic yet you people keep trotting it out as "gospel"!

Revenue began increasing right after the 1993 tax increases, but the dot com boom didn't even begin until 1995 and wasn't really booming until 1997.

I already had this discussion with him. He apparently doesn't allow pesky facts to interfere with his delusional agenda.

Not to be rude, but you don't have a fucking clue about what this country has done to it's people since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the massive wealth that it's shareholders of USA.INC are sitting on. The "gubermint" that you have such loyalty to and cling to like it's your momma and daddy is sitting on Trillions of dollars of wealth . Do some research on the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report). Do that and you will find that this composite for profit corporate "gubermint" owns majority stock in every Fortune 500 corporation and their subsidiaries. They own amusement parks, racetracks, golf courses, land, etc, etc. When USA.INC went bankrupt again, it was taken into receivership by the IMF which is just another banking operation that is also controlled by the same people that own the Federal Reserve bank. Your idea of how things REALLY work is so far from reality that it would take me HOURS to explain to you what has been done to us.

Why do major corporations pay little to no taxes on their profits? Because it would affect the dividends that the stockholders receive. Why are they allowed to offshore jobs? Because cheap labor and lax environmental laws pads their bottom line We are not under the protections of the U.S constitution that was done awa with when America became incorporated in 1868 and made it official in 1871 with the Act Of 1871. The debt slavery system happened in small increments but it's pretty much in place now. It's not the lack of money or resources that is the problem, it's the system that is ran by people that don't give a shit about us. We are just a human resource with diminsihing returns. They toss out just enough scraps in order to keep us on the hamster wheel. Wake the fuck up, my friend....we are not in Kansas anymore.

Tell it to someone who was talking about that. I care not that you feel compelled to throw non-sequiturs in my direction. If you want to respond to what I posted, feel free. Otherwise, fuck off.

Income taxes or any other tax doesn't mean shit...you seem to think that if taxes were higher that you would benefit...you are 100 percent wrong. I just gave you a starting point to research about the type of wealth that is being amassed off of our backs.

Again ... because you're hard of learning ... that has nothing to do with what I posted.

 

[Rshermr]

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ed! The reason you can increase taxes is BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom! The liberal narrative that increasing taxes is what led to increased revenues is laughably simplistic yet you people keep trotting it out as "gospel"!

You must want others to smell the coffee because you can not, me boy. Or are you simply repeating the right wing economic plan. Decrease taxes, decrease taxes. Of course you are.
Problem is, me boy, that you can not show a single time when decreasing taxes in a bad economy has ever worked. But the rational world can show when it did not help, and when it generally hurt the economy. Not, me boy, because taxes went down. Now try to follow this, because generally this is where cons loose the argument. Because the rational plan has more than one component.
While you say, over and over, decrease taxes and the economy gets better, there is NO history to point to that backs it up. What rational people say is: If you increase taxes, it will do no real good, and some marginal BAD. Not enough to worry about, but a little. What will happen (now try to stay tuned in here, me boy) is that thinking people will suggest you increase SPENDING. Since politicians are pushed to try to not increase the national debt, they need to raise money to spend stimulativly via taxes. So, they see more than one component of the move (which is too complex for cons) and take the rational next (second) step and spend stimulatively. And the result, always, is increased employment and a better economy. Always.
So, there you go. I know you will be unable to comprehend this two part argument, and you will want to stay with the republican economic plan, which is decrease taxes. It is so simple, and you have been told it works. But, of course, it has not. And can not. But you are told what to believe, and you are NOT a rational organism. Rather, you are a con tool.
So, me boy, consider the next (untrue) republican talking point. If you increase taxes and spend, you will increase the national debt. Why does that never occur?? Again, you will have to make a heroic effort to follow this multi part argument. Again, you believe the one part argument provided you by the republican thought developers: If you increase spending, you will increase the national debt. So why is that a stupid and incorrect argument? For three reasons:
1. Because historically it has not increased the national debt.
2. Because stimulative spending causes increases in employment and decreases in unemployment.
3. Because increased employment increases incoming gov revenues which decreases the national debt.
Now, again, I know this is not what you have been told to believe. But it is true. And if you had a rational mind, you would check it out: THE NATIONAL DEBT ALWAYS INCREASES GREATLY WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH, AND DECREASES WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS LOW. ALWAYS.

I know. I know. Two part arguments are way to complex for the con mind, which causes you a major head ache. But truth is truth, me boy. And that is the truth. And what you are pushing is the great republican lie.
Do they pay you to post your drivel, or do you do it for free, me boy?

So when John F. Kennedy called for tax cuts back in the 1960's...that was a "right wing economic plan"?

You know what's amusing about you, Rshermr! You actually think when you come on here and lecture about economics that you sound like you know what you're talking about...when in fact you ALWAYS make an ass of yourself!

You know what is amusing about you, me boy? You do not know how to read, or to think, apparently. I did not say there was a problem with lowering prices, me boy. Not in general Now, PAY ATTENTION. I said, me boy, that you should ot cut taxes in a BAD ECONOMY. See the difference//
In the case of Kennedy, there was never a problem with lowering prices because the economy was....now, wait for it, me boy....GOOD. Unemployment was not high.
Now, see if you can follow this, me boy. Your favorite person of all time, Ronald Reagan. He had a somewhat bad economy. about 7.2$ unemployment when he took office in January of 1981. So, being a supply side economist big time, and his economic team believing in the economic theory of supply side, he lowered taxes right away. And what do you suppose happened. Good things like in Kennedy's economy? Of course not. The unemployment shot up over the next 21 months to over 10.8%. SECOND HIGHEST IN OUR HISTORY. So, with a big recession on hand, what did ronnie do? Actually what did his team do? Why, they raised taxes 11 times, me boy. Note, I said RAISED. And spent like a drunken sailor. Trippled the national debt. Spent more than all the US presidents in the history of the US Combined. And the economy thrived based on his hew found Keynesian economic principles. Thrived, me boy. Even though he was a supply side guy (can you say Reaganomics?) he used democratic Keynesian principles to fix his mess.
You are welcome, me boy. Let me know if you need more lessons.

You really are determined to show how little you know about economics...aren't you!

If the economy was "GOOD" under Kennedy...then kindly explain why a Democratic icon like him was calling for tax cuts?

What Reagan inherited wasn't a "somewhat bad economy"...what he inherited was full blown Stagflation.

As for the liberal myth that Reagan was really a tax raiser? Yes, he raised taxes 11 times during his two terms in office but anyone with half a brain who looks at those 11 tax increases and compares them to the tax cuts that Reagan made would never arrive at the conclusion that Reagan grew the economy because he increased taxes. One who also knew the history of those tax cuts would also know that one of those tax increases...the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act of 1982...was a deal between Reagan and Tip O'Neal where Reagan would sign off on raising taxes if Democrats in Congress would cut spending. Reagan kept his end of the bargain...the Democrats did not. As for the other tax increases? Most of them were increases of consumption taxes on things like cigarettes and gasoline...tax increases that pale in comparison to the tax cuts that he made to American's income taxes.

WTF? The Congress can't pass spending bills without the consent and approval of the president. If Democrats didn't keep their end of the deal, then Reagan shouldn't have signed the bills. Even worse for your rhetoric... Republicans controlled the Senate. So even if the Democrat-led House passed spending bills, the Republican-led Senate could have cut spending from the bills.

 

[fbj]

Google it.

And thanks Obama.

If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up

If you believe that you need to be in a mental institution you retarded mutherfucker

 

[fbj]

Those are FAKE NUMBERS

 

[Oldstyle]

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ed! The reason you can increase taxes is BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom! The liberal narrative that increasing taxes is what led to increased revenues is laughably simplistic yet you people keep trotting it out as "gospel"!

You must want others to smell the coffee because you can not, me boy. Or are you simply repeating the right wing economic plan. Decrease taxes, decrease taxes. Of course you are.
Problem is, me boy, that you can not show a single time when decreasing taxes in a bad economy has ever worked. But the rational world can show when it did not help, and when it generally hurt the economy. Not, me boy, because taxes went down. Now try to follow this, because generally this is where cons loose the argument. Because the rational plan has more than one component.
While you say, over and over, decrease taxes and the economy gets better, there is NO history to point to that backs it up. What rational people say is: If you increase taxes, it will do no real good, and some marginal BAD. Not enough to worry about, but a little. What will happen (now try to stay tuned in here, me boy) is that thinking people will suggest you increase SPENDING. Since politicians are pushed to try to not increase the national debt, they need to raise money to spend stimulativly via taxes. So, they see more than one component of the move (which is too complex for cons) and take the rational next (second) step and spend stimulatively. And the result, always, is increased employment and a better economy. Always.
So, there you go. I know you will be unable to comprehend this two part argument, and you will want to stay with the republican economic plan, which is decrease taxes. It is so simple, and you have been told it works. But, of course, it has not. And can not. But you are told what to believe, and you are NOT a rational organism. Rather, you are a con tool.
So, me boy, consider the next (untrue) republican talking point. If you increase taxes and spend, you will increase the national debt. Why does that never occur?? Again, you will have to make a heroic effort to follow this multi part argument. Again, you believe the one part argument provided you by the republican thought developers: If you increase spending, you will increase the national debt. So why is that a stupid and incorrect argument? For three reasons:
1. Because historically it has not increased the national debt.
2. Because stimulative spending causes increases in employment and decreases in unemployment.
3. Because increased employment increases incoming gov revenues which decreases the national debt.
Now, again, I know this is not what you have been told to believe. But it is true. And if you had a rational mind, you would check it out: THE NATIONAL DEBT ALWAYS INCREASES GREATLY WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH, AND DECREASES WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS LOW. ALWAYS.

I know. I know. Two part arguments are way to complex for the con mind, which causes you a major head ache. But truth is truth, me boy. And that is the truth. And what you are pushing is the great republican lie.
Do they pay you to post your drivel, or do you do it for free, me boy?

So when John F. Kennedy called for tax cuts back in the 1960's...that was a "right wing economic plan"?

You know what's amusing about you, Rshermr! You actually think when you come on here and lecture about economics that you sound like you know what you're talking about...when in fact you ALWAYS make an ass of yourself!

You know what is amusing about you, me boy? You do not know how to read, or to think, apparently. I did not say there was a problem with lowering prices, me boy. Not in general Now, PAY ATTENTION. I said, me boy, that you should ot cut taxes in a BAD ECONOMY. See the difference//
In the case of Kennedy, there was never a problem with lowering prices because the economy was....now, wait for it, me boy....GOOD. Unemployment was not high.
Now, see if you can follow this, me boy. Your favorite person of all time, Ronald Reagan. He had a somewhat bad economy. about 7.2$ unemployment when he took office in January of 1981. So, being a supply side economist big time, and his economic team believing in the economic theory of supply side, he lowered taxes right away. And what do you suppose happened. Good things like in Kennedy's economy? Of course not. The unemployment shot up over the next 21 months to over 10.8%. SECOND HIGHEST IN OUR HISTORY. So, with a big recession on hand, what did ronnie do? Actually what did his team do? Why, they raised taxes 11 times, me boy. Note, I said RAISED. And spent like a drunken sailor. Trippled the national debt. Spent more than all the US presidents in the history of the US Combined. And the economy thrived based on his hew found Keynesian economic principles. Thrived, me boy. Even though he was a supply side guy (can you say Reaganomics?) he used democratic Keynesian principles to fix his mess.
You are welcome, me boy. Let me know if you need more lessons.

You really are determined to show how little you know about economics...aren't you!

If the economy was "GOOD" under Kennedy...then kindly explain why a Democratic icon like him was calling for tax cuts?

What Reagan inherited wasn't a "somewhat bad economy"...what he inherited was full blown Stagflation.

As for the liberal myth that Reagan was really a tax raiser? Yes, he raised taxes 11 times during his two terms in office but anyone with half a brain who looks at those 11 tax increases and compares them to the tax cuts that Reagan made would never arrive at the conclusion that Reagan grew the economy because he increased taxes. One who also knew the history of those tax cuts would also know that one of those tax increases...the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act of 1982...was a deal between Reagan and Tip O'Neal where Reagan would sign off on raising taxes if Democrats in Congress would cut spending. Reagan kept his end of the bargain...the Democrats did not. As for the other tax increases? Most of them were increases of consumption taxes on things like cigarettes and gasoline...tax increases that pale in comparison to the tax cuts that he made to American's income taxes.

WTF? The Congress can't pass spending bills without the consent and approval of the president. If Democrats didn't keep their end of the deal, then Reagan shouldn't have signed the bills. Even worse for your rhetoric... Republicans controlled the Senate. So even if the Democrat-led House passed spending bills, the Republican-led Senate could have cut spending from the bills.

I believe the deal between Reagan and O'Neal was a three for one...spending cuts for tax increases...deal. Reagan reluctantly signed off on the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act and gave O'Neal and the Democrats what they wanted only to have the Democrats renege on their part of the bargain when they balked at spending cuts.

 

[sealybobo]

Those are FAKE NUMBERS

If even you're keeping your job we are close to zero unemployment. Do you know what that means? That means if there are 100 companies looking for help there are 100 people looking for work. The problem is companies need people with skills. You can't just give those people those jobs. You have to know what you are doing. So companies keep looking for someone with experience.

 

[sealybobo]

You must want others to smell the coffee because you can not, me boy. Or are you simply repeating the right wing economic plan. Decrease taxes, decrease taxes. Of course you are.
Problem is, me boy, that you can not show a single time when decreasing taxes in a bad economy has ever worked. But the rational world can show when it did not help, and when it generally hurt the economy. Not, me boy, because taxes went down. Now try to follow this, because generally this is where cons loose the argument. Because the rational plan has more than one component.
While you say, over and over, decrease taxes and the economy gets better, there is NO history to point to that backs it up. What rational people say is: If you increase taxes, it will do no real good, and some marginal BAD. Not enough to worry about, but a little. What will happen (now try to stay tuned in here, me boy) is that thinking people will suggest you increase SPENDING. Since politicians are pushed to try to not increase the national debt, they need to raise money to spend stimulativly via taxes. So, they see more than one component of the move (which is too complex for cons) and take the rational next (second) step and spend stimulatively. And the result, always, is increased employment and a better economy. Always.
So, there you go. I know you will be unable to comprehend this two part argument, and you will want to stay with the republican economic plan, which is decrease taxes. It is so simple, and you have been told it works. But, of course, it has not. And can not. But you are told what to believe, and you are NOT a rational organism. Rather, you are a con tool.
So, me boy, consider the next (untrue) republican talking point. If you increase taxes and spend, you will increase the national debt. Why does that never occur?? Again, you will have to make a heroic effort to follow this multi part argument. Again, you believe the one part argument provided you by the republican thought developers: If you increase spending, you will increase the national debt. So why is that a stupid and incorrect argument? For three reasons:
1. Because historically it has not increased the national debt.
2. Because stimulative spending causes increases in employment and decreases in unemployment.
3. Because increased employment increases incoming gov revenues which decreases the national debt.
Now, again, I know this is not what you have been told to believe. But it is true. And if you had a rational mind, you would check it out: THE NATIONAL DEBT ALWAYS INCREASES GREATLY WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH, AND DECREASES WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS LOW. ALWAYS.

I know. I know. Two part arguments are way to complex for the con mind, which causes you a major head ache. But truth is truth, me boy. And that is the truth. And what you are pushing is the great republican lie.
Do they pay you to post your drivel, or do you do it for free, me boy?

So when John F. Kennedy called for tax cuts back in the 1960's...that was a "right wing economic plan"?

You know what's amusing about you, Rshermr! You actually think when you come on here and lecture about economics that you sound like you know what you're talking about...when in fact you ALWAYS make an ass of yourself!

You know what is amusing about you, me boy? You do not know how to read, or to think, apparently. I did not say there was a problem with lowering prices, me boy. Not in general Now, PAY ATTENTION. I said, me boy, that you should ot cut taxes in a BAD ECONOMY. See the difference//
In the case of Kennedy, there was never a problem with lowering prices because the economy was....now, wait for it, me boy....GOOD. Unemployment was not high.
Now, see if you can follow this, me boy. Your favorite person of all time, Ronald Reagan. He had a somewhat bad economy. about 7.2$ unemployment when he took office in January of 1981. So, being a supply side economist big time, and his economic team believing in the economic theory of supply side, he lowered taxes right away. And what do you suppose happened. Good things like in Kennedy's economy? Of course not. The unemployment shot up over the next 21 months to over 10.8%. SECOND HIGHEST IN OUR HISTORY. So, with a big recession on hand, what did ronnie do? Actually what did his team do? Why, they raised taxes 11 times, me boy. Note, I said RAISED. And spent like a drunken sailor. Trippled the national debt. Spent more than all the US presidents in the history of the US Combined. And the economy thrived based on his hew found Keynesian economic principles. Thrived, me boy. Even though he was a supply side guy (can you say Reaganomics?) he used democratic Keynesian principles to fix his mess.
You are welcome, me boy. Let me know if you need more lessons.

You really are determined to show how little you know about economics...aren't you!

If the economy was "GOOD" under Kennedy...then kindly explain why a Democratic icon like him was calling for tax cuts?

What Reagan inherited wasn't a "somewhat bad economy"...what he inherited was full blown Stagflation.

As for the liberal myth that Reagan was really a tax raiser? Yes, he raised taxes 11 times during his two terms in office but anyone with half a brain who looks at those 11 tax increases and compares them to the tax cuts that Reagan made would never arrive at the conclusion that Reagan grew the economy because he increased taxes. One who also knew the history of those tax cuts would also know that one of those tax increases...the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act of 1982...was a deal between Reagan and Tip O'Neal where Reagan would sign off on raising taxes if Democrats in Congress would cut spending. Reagan kept his end of the bargain...the Democrats did not. As for the other tax increases? Most of them were increases of consumption taxes on things like cigarettes and gasoline...tax increases that pale in comparison to the tax cuts that he made to American's income taxes.

WTF? The Congress can't pass spending bills without the consent and approval of the president. If Democrats didn't keep their end of the deal, then Reagan shouldn't have signed the bills. Even worse for your rhetoric... Republicans controlled the Senate. So even if the Democrat-led House passed spending bills, the Republican-led Senate could have cut spending from the bills.

I believe the deal between Reagan and O'Neal was a three for one...spending cuts for tax increases...deal. Reagan reluctantly signed off on the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act and gave O'Neal and the Democrats what they wanted only to have the Democrats renege on their part of the bargain when they balked at spending cuts.

So Reagan wasn't as great as they say? Stupid? Gullible?

 

[Rshermr]

You must want others to smell the coffee because you can not, me boy. Or are you simply repeating the right wing economic plan. Decrease taxes, decrease taxes. Of course you are.
Problem is, me boy, that you can not show a single time when decreasing taxes in a bad economy has ever worked. But the rational world can show when it did not help, and when it generally hurt the economy. Not, me boy, because taxes went down. Now try to follow this, because generally this is where cons loose the argument. Because the rational plan has more than one component.
While you say, over and over, decrease taxes and the economy gets better, there is NO history to point to that backs it up. What rational people say is: If you increase taxes, it will do no real good, and some marginal BAD. Not enough to worry about, but a little. What will happen (now try to stay tuned in here, me boy) is that thinking people will suggest you increase SPENDING. Since politicians are pushed to try to not increase the national debt, they need to raise money to spend stimulativly via taxes. So, they see more than one component of the move (which is too complex for cons) and take the rational next (second) step and spend stimulatively. And the result, always, is increased employment and a better economy. Always.
So, there you go. I know you will be unable to comprehend this two part argument, and you will want to stay with the republican economic plan, which is decrease taxes. It is so simple, and you have been told it works. But, of course, it has not. And can not. But you are told what to believe, and you are NOT a rational organism. Rather, you are a con tool.
So, me boy, consider the next (untrue) republican talking point. If you increase taxes and spend, you will increase the national debt. Why does that never occur?? Again, you will have to make a heroic effort to follow this multi part argument. Again, you believe the one part argument provided you by the republican thought developers: If you increase spending, you will increase the national debt. So why is that a stupid and incorrect argument? For three reasons:
1. Because historically it has not increased the national debt.
2. Because stimulative spending causes increases in employment and decreases in unemployment.
3. Because increased employment increases incoming gov revenues which decreases the national debt.
Now, again, I know this is not what you have been told to believe. But it is true. And if you had a rational mind, you would check it out: THE NATIONAL DEBT ALWAYS INCREASES GREATLY WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH, AND DECREASES WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS LOW. ALWAYS.

I know. I know. Two part arguments are way to complex for the con mind, which causes you a major head ache. But truth is truth, me boy. And that is the truth. And what you are pushing is the great republican lie.
Do they pay you to post your drivel, or do you do it for free, me boy?

So when John F. Kennedy called for tax cuts back in the 1960's...that was a "right wing economic plan"?

You know what's amusing about you, Rshermr! You actually think when you come on here and lecture about economics that you sound like you know what you're talking about...when in fact you ALWAYS make an ass of yourself!

You know what is amusing about you, me boy? You do not know how to read, or to think, apparently. I did not say there was a problem with lowering prices, me boy. Not in general Now, PAY ATTENTION. I said, me boy, that you should ot cut taxes in a BAD ECONOMY. See the difference//
In the case of Kennedy, there was never a problem with lowering prices because the economy was....now, wait for it, me boy....GOOD. Unemployment was not high.
Now, see if you can follow this, me boy. Your favorite person of all time, Ronald Reagan. He had a somewhat bad economy. about 7.2$ unemployment when he took office in January of 1981. So, being a supply side economist big time, and his economic team believing in the economic theory of supply side, he lowered taxes right away. And what do you suppose happened. Good things like in Kennedy's economy? Of course not. The unemployment shot up over the next 21 months to over 10.8%. SECOND HIGHEST IN OUR HISTORY. So, with a big recession on hand, what did ronnie do? Actually what did his team do? Why, they raised taxes 11 times, me boy. Note, I said RAISED. And spent like a drunken sailor. Trippled the national debt. Spent more than all the US presidents in the history of the US Combined. And the economy thrived based on his hew found Keynesian economic principles. Thrived, me boy. Even though he was a supply side guy (can you say Reaganomics?) he used democratic Keynesian principles to fix his mess.
You are welcome, me boy. Let me know if you need more lessons.

You really are determined to show how little you know about economics...aren't you!

If the economy was "GOOD" under Kennedy...then kindly explain why a Democratic icon like him was calling for tax cuts?

What Reagan inherited wasn't a "somewhat bad economy"...what he inherited was full blown Stagflation.

As for the liberal myth that Reagan was really a tax raiser? Yes, he raised taxes 11 times during his two terms in office but anyone with half a brain who looks at those 11 tax increases and compares them to the tax cuts that Reagan made would never arrive at the conclusion that Reagan grew the economy because he increased taxes. One who also knew the history of those tax cuts would also know that one of those tax increases...the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act of 1982...was a deal between Reagan and Tip O'Neal where Reagan would sign off on raising taxes if Democrats in Congress would cut spending. Reagan kept his end of the bargain...the Democrats did not. As for the other tax increases? Most of them were increases of consumption taxes on things like cigarettes and gasoline...tax increases that pale in comparison to the tax cuts that he made to American's income taxes.

WTF? The Congress can't pass spending bills without the consent and approval of the president. If Democrats didn't keep their end of the deal, then Reagan shouldn't have signed the bills. Even worse for your rhetoric... Republicans controlled the Senate. So even if the Democrat-led House passed spending bills, the Republican-led Senate could have cut spending from the bills.

I believe the deal between Reagan and O'Neal was a three for one...spending cuts for tax increases...deal. Reagan reluctantly signed off on the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act and gave O'Neal and the Democrats what they wanted only to have the Democrats renege on their part of the bargain when they balked at spending cuts.

Funny. Did you think anyone cares what you think, me boy. You are a con tool. What can you prove?

 

[Faun]

You must want others to smell the coffee because you can not, me boy. Or are you simply repeating the right wing economic plan. Decrease taxes, decrease taxes. Of course you are.
Problem is, me boy, that you can not show a single time when decreasing taxes in a bad economy has ever worked. But the rational world can show when it did not help, and when it generally hurt the economy. Not, me boy, because taxes went down. Now try to follow this, because generally this is where cons loose the argument. Because the rational plan has more than one component.
While you say, over and over, decrease taxes and the economy gets better, there is NO history to point to that backs it up. What rational people say is: If you increase taxes, it will do no real good, and some marginal BAD. Not enough to worry about, but a little. What will happen (now try to stay tuned in here, me boy) is that thinking people will suggest you increase SPENDING. Since politicians are pushed to try to not increase the national debt, they need to raise money to spend stimulativly via taxes. So, they see more than one component of the move (which is too complex for cons) and take the rational next (second) step and spend stimulatively. And the result, always, is increased employment and a better economy. Always.
So, there you go. I know you will be unable to comprehend this two part argument, and you will want to stay with the republican economic plan, which is decrease taxes. It is so simple, and you have been told it works. But, of course, it has not. And can not. But you are told what to believe, and you are NOT a rational organism. Rather, you are a con tool.
So, me boy, consider the next (untrue) republican talking point. If you increase taxes and spend, you will increase the national debt. Why does that never occur?? Again, you will have to make a heroic effort to follow this multi part argument. Again, you believe the one part argument provided you by the republican thought developers: If you increase spending, you will increase the national debt. So why is that a stupid and incorrect argument? For three reasons:
1. Because historically it has not increased the national debt.
2. Because stimulative spending causes increases in employment and decreases in unemployment.
3. Because increased employment increases incoming gov revenues which decreases the national debt.
Now, again, I know this is not what you have been told to believe. But it is true. And if you had a rational mind, you would check it out: THE NATIONAL DEBT ALWAYS INCREASES GREATLY WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH, AND DECREASES WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS LOW. ALWAYS.

I know. I know. Two part arguments are way to complex for the con mind, which causes you a major head ache. But truth is truth, me boy. And that is the truth. And what you are pushing is the great republican lie.
Do they pay you to post your drivel, or do you do it for free, me boy?

So when John F. Kennedy called for tax cuts back in the 1960's...that was a "right wing economic plan"?

You know what's amusing about you, Rshermr! You actually think when you come on here and lecture about economics that you sound like you know what you're talking about...when in fact you ALWAYS make an ass of yourself!

You know what is amusing about you, me boy? You do not know how to read, or to think, apparently. I did not say there was a problem with lowering prices, me boy. Not in general Now, PAY ATTENTION. I said, me boy, that you should ot cut taxes in a BAD ECONOMY. See the difference//
In the case of Kennedy, there was never a problem with lowering prices because the economy was....now, wait for it, me boy....GOOD. Unemployment was not high.
Now, see if you can follow this, me boy. Your favorite person of all time, Ronald Reagan. He had a somewhat bad economy. about 7.2$ unemployment when he took office in January of 1981. So, being a supply side economist big time, and his economic team believing in the economic theory of supply side, he lowered taxes right away. And what do you suppose happened. Good things like in Kennedy's economy? Of course not. The unemployment shot up over the next 21 months to over 10.8%. SECOND HIGHEST IN OUR HISTORY. So, with a big recession on hand, what did ronnie do? Actually what did his team do? Why, they raised taxes 11 times, me boy. Note, I said RAISED. And spent like a drunken sailor. Trippled the national debt. Spent more than all the US presidents in the history of the US Combined. And the economy thrived based on his hew found Keynesian economic principles. Thrived, me boy. Even though he was a supply side guy (can you say Reaganomics?) he used democratic Keynesian principles to fix his mess.
You are welcome, me boy. Let me know if you need more lessons.

You really are determined to show how little you know about economics...aren't you!

If the economy was "GOOD" under Kennedy...then kindly explain why a Democratic icon like him was calling for tax cuts?

What Reagan inherited wasn't a "somewhat bad economy"...what he inherited was full blown Stagflation.

As for the liberal myth that Reagan was really a tax raiser? Yes, he raised taxes 11 times during his two terms in office but anyone with half a brain who looks at those 11 tax increases and compares them to the tax cuts that Reagan made would never arrive at the conclusion that Reagan grew the economy because he increased taxes. One who also knew the history of those tax cuts would also know that one of those tax increases...the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act of 1982...was a deal between Reagan and Tip O'Neal where Reagan would sign off on raising taxes if Democrats in Congress would cut spending. Reagan kept his end of the bargain...the Democrats did not. As for the other tax increases? Most of them were increases of consumption taxes on things like cigarettes and gasoline...tax increases that pale in comparison to the tax cuts that he made to American's income taxes.

WTF? The Congress can't pass spending bills without the consent and approval of the president. If Democrats didn't keep their end of the deal, then Reagan shouldn't have signed the bills. Even worse for your rhetoric... Republicans controlled the Senate. So even if the Democrat-led House passed spending bills, the Republican-led Senate could have cut spending from the bills.

I believe the deal between Reagan and O'Neal was a three for one...spending cuts for tax increases...deal. Reagan reluctantly signed off on the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act and gave O'Neal and the Democrats what they wanted only to have the Democrats renege on their part of the bargain when they balked at spending cuts.

Again..... since you ignored it ... the Republican-led Senate was under no obligation to pass the spending bills from the House if they didn't contain any cuts you claim were promised.

Even if they did, Reagan didn't have to approve them.

 

[Oldstyle]

And your "explanation" of why Kennedy called for tax cuts then simply underscored why tax cuts are being called for by Bill Clinton now and why it isn't a far right position only pushed by conservatives!

lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

 

[Rshermr]

And your "explanation" of why Kennedy called for tax cuts then simply underscored why tax cuts are being called for by Bill Clinton now and why it isn't a far right position only pushed by conservatives!

lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and fuck off.

 

[Oldstyle]

And your "explanation" of why Kennedy called for tax cuts then simply underscored why tax cuts are being called for by Bill Clinton now and why it isn't a far right position only pushed by conservatives!

lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and fuck off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!

You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!

How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!

 

[edthecynic]

One who also knew the history of those tax cuts would also know that one of those tax increases...the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act of 1982...was a deal between Reagan and Tip O'Neal where Reagan would sign off on raising taxes if Democrats in Congress would cut spending. Reagan kept his end of the bargain...the Democrats did not.

LIAR!
Tip O'Neil and GOP Senate leader Bob Dole reached a spending cut deal and it was REAGAN who torpedoed it, because it made tiny cuts to St Ronnie's Star Wars slush fund pork barrel money laundering scam!!!!!

I believe the deal between Reagan and O'Neal was a three for one...spending cuts for tax increases...deal. Reagan reluctantly signed off on the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act and gave O'Neal and the Democrats what they wanted only to have the Democrats renege on their part of the bargain when they balked at spending cuts.

So typical of the lying scum Right, I nailed you on this lie earlier in this same thread only to have you lie again.

 

[edthecynic]

I believe the deal between Reagan and O'Neal was a three for one...spending cuts for tax increases...deal. Reagan reluctantly signed off on the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act and gave O'Neal and the Democrats what they wanted only to have the Democrats renege on their part of the bargain when they balked at spending cuts.

So Reagan wasn't as great as they say? Stupid? Gullible?

Lying welsher is more like it!