Originally Posted by - Jesus Christ - (Post 14958815)

Not true. He [the congress] cut taxes for the rich and lowered taxes on capitol gains.

They want Reagan's wrinkly man missle inside them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Originally Posted by scoreman (Post 14957780)

Even taking the viewpoint that distributing some of the wealth from the well to do in this country to the larger base of Americans struggling paycheck to paycheck is EXACTLY what is going to happen, I still do not understand the argument of why this is a bad thing. Is it a bad thing to want those who are very needy to have just a little bit more security in the areas of food, housing and medical care?

The disparity between the very rich and the very poor has never been greater in the USA than it is now. For all the fat cats sitting and crying the blues because their retirement accounts are down 40%, it rings hollow for the low income family that waters down their milk to make it last longer and prays to God their car doesnt break down in between paychecks. A poster earlier points out that families making less than 20k pay no income tax. Isnt that a good thing? Because if they were paying taxes that would be outrageous. The fat cats spend 20k on their dining out per year, not their total family budget. Im shocked that a family in the USA can even live on 20k a year. How is that possible?

I had this professor in undergrad that gave this lecture once that I will never forget. In that lecture he told all that students that when they left Cal-Berkeley and went on to be lawyers and doctors and engineers, to never forget that the wealth distribution in the USA is a heavily slanted pyramid. And that social services like welfare, food stamps and unemployment are the main line of defense that the wealthy have against angry mobs storming their neighborhoods with pitchforks and burning torches. Don't think for a moment that we are so civilized in the USA that this cannot happen. The day that comes that large amounts of the poor cannot feed their children or get medicine for their family and you will see anarchy. If you are rich, the smart play to protect your own security is to allow the governenment to invest in protecting the basics needs of the poor.

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor (Post 14959753)

This is another one of those cases where supply siders only want to call income tax "tax" and not mention anything else.
So they can drone on about how the rich pay for such a large percentage of the total and the poor don't pay anything.

They never mention the payroll tax. Wanna know why?
Payroll tax is capped at about 100K. So a guy making 10MM a year pays payroll tax on 1% of his income while a guy making 50K pays payroll tax on 100% of his income.

Payroll taxes were raised significantly during the Reagan administration to cover the shortfall the program was experiencing at the time.

Funny how supply siders never mention payroll taxes when talking about who shoulders the tax burden....but they include payroll tax collections when telling you how revenues went up in the 80's after Reagan cut taxes.

Originally Posted by - Jesus Christ - (Post 14959848)

This is too complicated for me to understand.

FACT: Economic growth during Clinton administration was due to a magic vile of Ronald Reagan's essence stored in the Whitehouse.

FACT: Democratic presidents are "tax and spend" because it sounds catchy.

CHECKMATE

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 14959970)

Hmm I always thought the increase in the economy was due to mainly the internet boom that he lucked into being pres during....

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 14959970)

Hmm I always thought the increase in the economy was due to mainly the internet boom that he lucked into being pres during....

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 14960013)

Agreed. When the economy is good under Democrats it is luck. When it is bad under Republicans it is the Democrats fault.

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 14960021)

Do you think any of the changes and policies set forth during Reagan's terms in office made it possible for the boom to happen? Or do we attribute it all to Mr. Gore's inventing? :1orglaugh

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 14960044)

I agree 100% with you. Reagan installed a policy that would only take effect 10 years later. Then Clinton poisoned it with his own policy that would poison it right around this time so that his wife could get elected. I bet you Bush has put a secret policy in effect too that will cause the economy to be good in 2016.

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 14960104)

lol well at least you made me laugh... :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Originally Posted by PR_Tom (Post 14957416)

lol yeah, it's just a catchphrase. Jump on board! yeeeeeeehaw!

And I'd really like to know the insurance provider who can cover a families major medical, incidental visits and catostrophic care for $5000 a year and a low deductible. And god help you if you have to buy it yourself. It's MORE likely that your deductible is closer to 5 grand and your coverage is closer to 15 grand. Mccains tax-health insurance "plan" is such a wasted effort. And made all the worse when he simply continues to mis-state Obamas plan. McCain continually insists that Obama would force you to accept goverment run socialist health care, and if an employer doesnt comply, they'll be fined. When all the while, for at least a year and counting now, Obamas plan has been clear that if you like and can afford what you currently have: NOTHING WILL CHANGE FOR YOU!!!!


I mean come on. Someone actually thought this tactic would work? Oh sorry, maybe it's a strategy not a tactic.. yawn.


Oh, and by the way... McCains health insurance tax rebate plan.. is a redistribution of YOUR WEALTH in the form of a tax rebate to deadbeats who can't afford platinum quality care!!!!! dont be fooled!!!!!! LMFAOOOOO :1orglaugh

ok the horse is dead. Beat at own risk.

Originally Posted by - Jesus Christ - (Post 14958815)

Not true. He [the congress] cut taxes for the rich and lowered taxes on capitol gains.

They want Reagan's wrinkly man missle inside them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 14960627)

Sorry Lord
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0310290853.asp

The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor (Post 14960641)

Ok so I think I understand now.

Economic growth in the 1980's was because of Reagan. The massive debt incurred in the 1980's was because of the Democratic controlled congress.

Economic growth in the 1990's was because of the republican congress, and so was the balanced budget. Clinton, however, did set things in motion that are fucking us over today. (How dare he think that poor people should own their own homes)
The housing crisis has nothing to do with congress making Wall Street exempt from State gaming laws and Bucket Shop laws in 2000 that allowed the creation of derivatives and credit default swaps....it's all because those annoying liberals wanted poor people to be home owners.

Everything bad that's happened from 2000-2006 was because of the Democratic minority in congress....and everything bad that's happening now is the fault of the Democratic paper thin majority that's been there for 18 months. (they apparently work quick)

So really, even when republicans control all 3 branches of government, the Democrats still manage to fuck things up by trying to help poor people. So the only way to really turn things around is to have a one party system (with that party being Republican)

Oh yeah, and I almost forgot. A 35% top tax rate is capitalist, and a 39.6% top rate is socialist.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 14959970)

Hmm I always thought the increase in the economy was due to mainly the internet boom that he lucked into being pres during....

Originally Posted by ThunderBalls (Post 14961280)

Thats probably the dumbest statement I've heard from a repub in months, and trust me, there's been plenty.

Originally Posted by - Jesus Christ - (Post 14959247)

Its actually very easy to pull off. You convince the middle class that they are rich or will be rich when they are not. Manipulation of the ego.

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 14961343)

Umm its what happened. You don't think the 'internet boom' did anything for 90's economy? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Originally Posted by robfantasy (Post 14955827)

lets just agree to disagree.

i give up, like i said before if obama was sipping lattes with osama bin laden you would probably want to dispute that he was discussing foreign policy.

its just pointless now.

Originally Posted by ThunderBalls (Post 14961375)

Do you get money from the Government for being retarded? If not you should seriously consider sucking dick for a living.

Originally Posted by RogerV (Post 14961378)

if anyone has a tie to osama its the bush family.. did you vote for bush? why did the binladen family get to fly out of the US when no one else could?

Originally Posted by spunkmaster (Post 14961665)

That was debunked and is just a myth !