Tax the rich
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
I want you all to takea look at this chart. For those of you who have trouble reading charts since 1980 all the up is Republican and all the down is Democratic.
Click chart for briefing on Federal Debt.
In 1980 Reagan was President, during his term, the Republicans controlled 2/3 of the Govenment, the Presdident and the Senate. Al always says this was not Reagans fault, Bullshit, he cut taxes and spent like crazy.
Now move ahead to 2000, now we have BushII, he forces through a tax cut and starts two wars, the blue line goes through the roof.
You consevatives say that Obamas jobs bill is crazy because it has not worked, well tell us how trax cuts have helped the economy?
Take another look at that chart, once we got another Moronic republican out of power, the blue line has leveled off. Much of that has come from the stimulus and we need more.
Instead of taking from the poor and giving to the rich, I say we put people to work fixing America.
Two big tax cuts by Republicans and two massive increases in debt.
Posted by the hypocrit.
Reagan had 2/3 of the govenment, but you say it was not his fault. Thats just more hypocritical crap!
Do you have a problem with posts without personal attacks? You've beat this like a dead horse, ok, when I stopped work after 40+ years I collected unemployment for the first and last time in my life, if this make me a hypocrite, then I guess I'm a hypocrite. How's that buffalo boy?
He's a bitter little man, Al, nothing can be done.
I admit I've never apologized for calling him a liberal turd in the punch bowl.
I want you all to takea look at this chart. For those of you who have trouble reading charts since 1980 all the up is Republican and all the down is Democratic.
Click chart for briefing on Federal Debt.
In 1980 Reagan was President, during his term, the Republicans controlled 2/3 of the Govenment, the Presdident and the Senate. Al always says this was not Reagans fault, Bullshit, he cut taxes and spent like crazy.
Now move ahead to 2000, now we have BushII, he forces through a tax cut and starts two wars, the blue line goes through the roof.
You consevatives say that Obamas jobs bill is crazy because it has not worked, well tell us how trax cuts have helped the economy?
Take another look at that chart, once we got another Moronic republican out of power, the blue line has leveled off. Much of that has come from the stimulus and we need more.
Instead of taking from the poor and giving to the rich, I say we put people to work fixing America.
Two big tax cuts by Republicans and two massive increases in debt.
Posted by the hypocrit.
Reagan had 2/3 of the govenment, but you say it was not his fault. Thats just more hypocritical crap!
Jim, your chart shows that sure Bush 2 pushed up the total deficit by a bit, but as we have noted many times before, the democratic controlled congress from 2007 - 2011 ran up the biggest debt in the reasonable past.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Domtoni,
Look at this chart again, your definition of "a bit" might need some re-thinking. Between Reagan and the two Bush's they have ruined our economy and now are trying to blame it on the Democrats. You must be so proud.
"A bit", are you serious, you call that almost virtical line A BIT!!!!
Domtoni, yes, saving the economy from the Bush/Reagan era huge spending after tax cuts did require a huge anount of money, but as you can see, once the irresponsable consevatives were remove, the blue line has leveled off, even started down some.
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Let me ask all you Consevatives:
Truthfully, if that chart was reversed, by that I mean that if all the upward movement in the debt was done by Democrats and all the downward movement was done by Republicans, would you be saying that its no big deal?
Domtini, would you then call the almost virtical rise under BushII, just "a bit" of a rise?
Truthfully, if that chart was reversed, by that I mean that if all the upward movement in the debt was done by Democrats and all the downward movement was done by Republicans, would you be saying that its no big deal?
Domtini, would you then call the almost virtical rise under BushII, just "a bit" of a rise?
Jim, Once again, the last six years of Clintons presidency was a Republican controlled congress and senate that proposed the balanced budget in the 105th congress. Bush did spend a lot of money, but the last two years of his presidency until 2009 were democrat controled congess and senate. 2009 till 2011 were totally controlled by democrats and 2/3 democrat control (senate and president) 2011/01 to present. Obama has had the biggest
2 1/2 year debt in history. He inherited the wars , granted, but the spending from 2007 is democrat control. The charts mislead because they dont tell who is in control.
Ian Anderson
Lifetime Supporter
Jim
Without ranting or anything can I ask if you have ever looked at what measures were put in place at what time and seen there effect in the next few years.
It regularly happens that for instance a Conservative Government makes plans that will cover a 5 year period and these plans only happen "after2 the labour gets in. Or Labour sets somethning in motion that happens once the conservatives are in power.
All Governments are dinosaurs that take forever to change direction irrespective of who is in "power".
That said A number of years ago we certainly had someone as the UK Chancellor who knew what he was doing - Nigel Lawson. I remember him standing up and stating new policy and then stating when the effects would be seen and felt in the economy. Each time he was right.
After that we had another who got most of it wrong Gordon Brown - always thought he was doing the right thing but honestly never had a clue.
Now I am sure in the past there have been brilliant Labour Chancellors and crap Conservative ones - in some ways with the government being a dinasaur is a good thing as it cannot change direction too far in a 5 year period.
Ian
Without ranting or anything can I ask if you have ever looked at what measures were put in place at what time and seen there effect in the next few years.
It regularly happens that for instance a Conservative Government makes plans that will cover a 5 year period and these plans only happen "after2 the labour gets in. Or Labour sets somethning in motion that happens once the conservatives are in power.
All Governments are dinosaurs that take forever to change direction irrespective of who is in "power".
That said A number of years ago we certainly had someone as the UK Chancellor who knew what he was doing - Nigel Lawson. I remember him standing up and stating new policy and then stating when the effects would be seen and felt in the economy. Each time he was right.
After that we had another who got most of it wrong Gordon Brown - always thought he was doing the right thing but honestly never had a clue.
Now I am sure in the past there have been brilliant Labour Chancellors and crap Conservative ones - in some ways with the government being a dinasaur is a good thing as it cannot change direction too far in a 5 year period.
Ian
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Ian,
Yes, I'm sure there is a lag time in both directions, as the economy improves some effect from the previous aministration do carry over. I'm sure that Clintons balancing of the budget, even paying down the debt he inherated from Reagan was helped by the BushI tax increase as well as the Dot.com boom.
Just as the poor economy, high unemployment and wars that Obama inherited from BushII have carried over well into the next administration.
But Ian,
To my eye, when I look at that debt chart, almost to the day that Reagan forced through the tax cuts (saying that this windfall for the rich would trickel down to everyone), the debt went straight up and the economy tanked.
Now I know that BushII inherated the Dot.com bust, not of his making, but then, almost to the day that he forced through tax cuts (even before 9-11 or the gulf wars) the blue line goes straight up.
I do not know how much more evidence is needed to to show that tax cuts do not help the economy.
Yes, I'm sure there is a lag time in both directions, as the economy improves some effect from the previous aministration do carry over. I'm sure that Clintons balancing of the budget, even paying down the debt he inherated from Reagan was helped by the BushI tax increase as well as the Dot.com boom.
Just as the poor economy, high unemployment and wars that Obama inherited from BushII have carried over well into the next administration.
But Ian,
To my eye, when I look at that debt chart, almost to the day that Reagan forced through the tax cuts (saying that this windfall for the rich would trickel down to everyone), the debt went straight up and the economy tanked.
Now I know that BushII inherated the Dot.com bust, not of his making, but then, almost to the day that he forced through tax cuts (even before 9-11 or the gulf wars) the blue line goes straight up.
I do not know how much more evidence is needed to to show that tax cuts do not help the economy.
Ian Anderson
Lifetime Supporter
Jim
Perhaps in some case they do - in others they don't.
Sort of cannot please everyone all the time.
Example fuel price in the UK is £1.35 a litre and some people are cutting down on food for the family to pay for fuel.
Now fuel in the UK is made up of something like 80% tax and duties combined. Reducing this tax would certainly be an advantage to the less well off that need to drive to get to work to put food on the table.
But having a deficit is never good no matter what. At some stage it needs to be repaid. Never live outside your means either in your own life or as a Government.
Ian
Perhaps in some case they do - in others they don't.
Sort of cannot please everyone all the time.
Example fuel price in the UK is £1.35 a litre and some people are cutting down on food for the family to pay for fuel.
Now fuel in the UK is made up of something like 80% tax and duties combined. Reducing this tax would certainly be an advantage to the less well off that need to drive to get to work to put food on the table.
But having a deficit is never good no matter what. At some stage it needs to be repaid. Never live outside your means either in your own life or as a Government.
Ian
I would call it a result of a Democratic congress.
Time to stop. I am getting sleepy rehashing stuff that has already been discussed and this logic disproved.
Here are the totals:
Reagan ran up $1.9 trillion over 8 years.
Bush 2 ran up $6.6 trillion in 8 years with the bulk in the past two years
Obama in 2009-2010 ran up $3.5 trillion and has zero results
But we have been through this before and arguing the same old stuff.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Domtoni,
I want you to look one more time at the chart, has the blue line stopped going up?
Has the blue line mabye even started down?
Has the unemployment rate gone down ever so slightly?
You think that is zero? Really?
If that is your idea of "zero results", what do you call the results from the last three Republican administrations?
So Reagan and BushII ran up a debt of 8.5 Trillion $ and you support/defend them??????
And you forgot to add in the $1,483 Trillion run up by BushI
Yes Domtoni we keep going over the same stuff because you and a few other continue to try and blame the huge deficit on President Obama, when all the evidence shows that the majority of the debt belongs to Reagan and the Bushs'.
*********
Rather than continually trying to blame one side, why don't we all agree that the fault is shared and the problem is shared and the solution needs to be shared!
You say "ZERO results".
I want you to look one more time at the chart, has the blue line stopped going up?
Has the blue line mabye even started down?
Has the unemployment rate gone down ever so slightly?
You think that is zero? Really?
If that is your idea of "zero results", what do you call the results from the last three Republican administrations?
So Reagan and BushII ran up a debt of 8.5 Trillion $ and you support/defend them??????
And you forgot to add in the $1,483 Trillion run up by BushI
Yes Domtoni we keep going over the same stuff because you and a few other continue to try and blame the huge deficit on President Obama, when all the evidence shows that the majority of the debt belongs to Reagan and the Bushs'.
*********
Rather than continually trying to blame one side, why don't we all agree that the fault is shared and the problem is shared and the solution needs to be shared!
Last edited:
Domtoni,
You say "ZERO results".
I want you to look one more time at the chart, has the blue line stopped going up?
Has the blue line mabye even started down?
Has the unemployment rate gone down ever so slightly?
You think that is zero? Really?
If that is your idea of "zero results", what do you call the results from the last three Republican administrations?
So Reagan and BushII ran up a debt of 8.5 Trillion $ and you support/defend them??????
And you forgot to add in the $1,483 Trillion run up by BushI
Yes Domtoni we keep going over the same stuff because you and a few other continue to try and blame the huge deficit on President Obama, when all the evidence shows that the majority of the debt belongs to Reagan and the Bushs'.
*********
Rather than continually trying to blame one side, why don't we all agree that the fault is shared and the problem is shared and the solution needs to be shared!
Yawn. Quick question. You value housing for banks etc no?
