Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The 1998 Republican Congress and Bill Clinton gave us a path to zero debt. But then the number of retards and bigots in the GOP metastasized and everything went to shit in a hurry.
And it started with, "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."
The giant elephant you seem to be missing is that Republicans spends as much, if not more, than Democrats.I can only post with borg drones so often. You guys really think that giving more of your money to politicians, to spend, steal, waste and lose is better than you keeping it for yourselves and your families and spending it according to your needs and priorities…..you are really sick in the head…and I don't know what will cure it.
You bitch about government being controlled by big business…right? And that big business buys politicians who then give big business our money…right?
And so you want to give those same people more of your money…in the form of taxes….right?
You guys are simply nuts.
After you have lived through a few Administrations of both parties, with every variation of friendly and opposition houses of Congress, it becomes blazingly obvious that both parties are HUGE SPENDERS.
But many of you piss drinkers live in denial and walk about like this:
I am far less concerned about tax rates than I am about tax expenditures.
Our American Politboro has the rubes completely snookered into focusing on tax rates. The American Politboro is guiding the conversation so the rubes never catch on to what is really happening out there.
They got this whole Us vs. Them thing going to keep the rubes divided. It's working beautifully!
Nope. I never said give them more money.The 1998 Republican Congress and Bill Clinton gave us a path to zero debt. But then the number of retards and bigots in the GOP metastasized and everything went to shit in a hurry.
And it started with, "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."
You just posted this….you say the politicians don't care about the deficit….right? That they turn everything they touch to shit….right?
Your solution….give them even more money. How does that make any sense?
The giant elephant you seem to be missing is that Republicans spends as much, if not more, than Democrats.I can only post with borg drones so often. You guys really think that giving more of your money to politicians, to spend, steal, waste and lose is better than you keeping it for yourselves and your families and spending it according to your needs and priorities…..you are really sick in the head…and I don't know what will cure it.
You bitch about government being controlled by big business…right? And that big business buys politicians who then give big business our money…right?
And so you want to give those same people more of your money…in the form of taxes….right?
You guys are simply nuts.
After you have lived through a few Administrations of both parties, with every variation of friendly and opposition houses of Congress, it becomes blazingly obvious that both parties are HUGE SPENDERS.
But many of you piss drinkers live in denial and walk about like this:
Nope. I never said give them more money.The 1998 Republican Congress and Bill Clinton gave us a path to zero debt. But then the number of retards and bigots in the GOP metastasized and everything went to shit in a hurry.
And it started with, "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."
You just posted this….you say the politicians don't care about the deficit….right? That they turn everything they touch to shit….right?
Your solution….give them even more money. How does that make any sense?
I said the Republicans are hypocrites. How you confused that in your pointy head to 'give them more money' is beyond me.
I am going to pull the curtain back now, and maybe some of the rubes will wake up.
You guys know about Grover Norquist's tax pledge right?
Here is what it says:
I, _____, pledge to the taxpayers of the (____ district of the) state of ______ and to the American people that I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.
Notice anything?
I want to ban all tax expenditures. It would provide a massive surplus which could then be used to lower tax rates for EVERYONE, and pay down the debt. And once the debt was paid off, we could lower tax rates for EVERYONE even more. This would also have the added benefit of serendipitous instant campaign finance reform. And people who earn identical incomes would be paying identical taxes.Nope. I never said give them more money.The 1998 Republican Congress and Bill Clinton gave us a path to zero debt. But then the number of retards and bigots in the GOP metastasized and everything went to shit in a hurry.
And it started with, "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."
You just posted this….you say the politicians don't care about the deficit….right? That they turn everything they touch to shit….right?
Your solution….give them even more money. How does that make any sense?
I said the Republicans are hypocrites. How you confused that in your pointy head to 'give them more money' is beyond me.
Do you want to increase taxes? If you do…you want to give them more money.
Nope. See post 211.I am going to pull the curtain back now, and maybe some of the rubes will wake up.
You guys know about Grover Norquist's tax pledge right?
Here is what it says:
I, _____, pledge to the taxpayers of the (____ district of the) state of ______ and to the American people that I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.
Notice anything?
Do you want to raise taxes?
And TODAY, the political descendants of those Southern right wing conservatives stand in the way of every civil rights bill for gays as Republicans.
The Democrats have always been the party of racism.
In fact, the most popular elected Democrat, former President Clinton, has an unmitigated history of racism.
Bet you love Clinton, huh, Fakey II?
The CONservatives old bait and switch.
Hint IDEOLOGY:
CONservatives of the CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa WERE Democrats who fought PROGRESSIVE ABE and the Repubs, it was PROGRESSIVES who gave US civil rights, while the CONservatives (almost exclusively from the Southern CONservative CONfederate states of AmeriKKKa who fought it.
UNLESS YOU THINK MLK JR WOULD NE A GOPer today?
"The contemporary tendency in our society is to base our distribution on scarcity, which has vanished, and to compress our abundance into the overfed mouths of the middle and upper classes until they gag with superfluity. If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity. It is not only moral, but it is also intelligent. We are wasting and degrading human life by clinging to archaic thinking.
The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty."
lol
Hmmm.....so you're opposed to poverty?
See if you can glean the cause of same, in this list:
Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn’t elected
a Republican mayor since 1961;
Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn’t elected one since 1954;
Cincinnati, OH (3rd)… since 1984;
Cleveland, OH (4th)… since 1989;
Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor;
St. Louis, MO (6th)…. since 1949;
El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor;
Milwaukee, WI (8th)… since 1908;
Philadelphia, PA (9th)… since 1952;
Newark, NJ (10th)… since 1907.
Top 10 Poorest Cities run by Democrats
The richest cities in America are also run by Democrats.
"Going For Broke: Is Los Angeles Headed in the Same Direction as Detroit? California Pension Reform President Dan Pellissier thinks our pension liabilities could have us filing for chapter eleven in two to three years.
....blames L.A.’s pension predicament on California's overly magnanimous policies. “We’re too generous,” he says, “and therein lies the problem: After 9/11, many fire and policemen got their bump in the pension formula, taking them from a 2% pension plan to a 3% pension plan, which is a 50% increase. By not putting any money away to cover all of those 50% increases, [the government] automatically created an underfunded pension liability.” - See more at: Going For Broke: Is Los Angeles Headed in the Same Direction as Detroit? - Los Angeles Magazine
"Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin"
Know what that means?
Social conservatives:
"Social conservatives may believe that the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviours. A social conservative wants to preserve traditional morality and social mores, often by opposing what they consider radical policies or social engineering."
If you want to talk about conservatives like reagan who tripled the national debt, go for it.
Reagan brought in more money through his tax cuts....and the democrat controlled congress spent all of it an more.....they lied to him....
Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman
Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."
Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."
Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts
The Pinocchio Test
It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.
Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.
If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.
Four Pinocchios
The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts
George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan
- Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
- But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
- Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So where is the value of increasing wealth when you are handed a bill you cannot pay?
Ya' mean sorta like this?
After 6 1/2 years of Obama, 47% of Americans could not handle a $400 expense:
"The survey results reveal a lack of economic preparedness among many adults. Only 53 percent of respondents indicate that they could cover a hypothetical emergency expense costing $400 without selling something or borrowing money. Thirty-one percent of respondents report going without some form of medical care in the past year because they could not afford it." FRB: Press Release--Federal Reserve Board issues Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households--May 27, 2015
Your stupidity and bigotry is far more vulgar than any dirty words could be.Reagan brought in more money through his tax cuts....and the democrat controlled congress spent all of it an more.....they lied to him....
Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman
Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."
Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."
Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts
The Pinocchio Test
It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.
Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.
If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.
Four Pinocchios
The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts
Tax cuts do pay for themselves….they always bring in more money…the problem….the democrats spend all of the money and then borrow and spend more….so if you outspend the money you generate with tax cuts….don't blame the tax cut, blame the spenders.
DUMBFUX (CONservatives/GOPers) don't understand there is a LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE TO LAFFERS CURVE, and NO credible economist thinks ANY tax cut the past 50+ years has brought in more revenues. NONE
Clinton raised the national debt 41%
Obama made it reach the sky.
Notice how I set the record straight without any vulgarity?
That's because I'm not a Liberal.
Reagan brought in more money through his tax cuts....and the democrat controlled congress spent all of it an more.....they lied to him....
Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman
Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."
Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."
Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts
The Pinocchio Test
It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.
Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.
If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.
Four Pinocchios
The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts
Tax cuts do pay for themselves….they always bring in more money…the problem….the democrats spend all of the money and then borrow and spend more….so if you outspend the money you generate with tax cuts….don't blame the tax cut, blame the spenders.
DUMBFUX (CONservatives/GOPers) don't understand there is a LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE TO LAFFERS CURVE, and NO credible economist thinks ANY tax cut the past 50+ years has brought in more revenues. NONE
Clinton raised the national debt 41%
Obama made it reach the sky.
Notice how I set the record straight without any vulgarity?
That's because I'm not a Liberal.
The real vulgarity is saying you're Conservative and then not acting like it.
