Carl Spackler
Well-Known Member
Tell me again how the liberals will tax us back into prosperity?? I keep getting confused by using logic vs. emotion and class envy.
Where Is The PROOF That The Conservative Agenda Works?
- Thread starter mame
- Start date
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
Ok. Liberals will tax the rich in order to stop our debt from building up. Simple enough?
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
First it must be established what you mean by conservative. Do you mean a Libertarian conservative like Ron Paul or Barry Goldwater? No, it hasn't succeeded because it hasn't been tried since Jefferson.
If you mean a neo-con like W, no, but what's the difference between Bush and Obama, politically? They both have ignored the law, stolen people's wealth, invaded sovereign countries, increased the size of federal government, sacrificed American lives to advance the New World Order, not to mention that they lied their asses off to the American public. George W was much different as governor of Texas. Just as Obama was much different as a Senator or as a campaigner. They ALL lie to get elected.
Since what happened in Florida in 2000, what have either party done to ensure an accurate vote count? Instituted electronic voting machines. Gee, those ought to be more reliable... "Integrity of the 2006 elections cannot be ensured." GAO
I'd mention that both Republicans and Democrats have worked together in bi-partisan harmony and compromise to make it harder for a third party to compete in the election process but I don't think too many here are for competition.
The question could very well be asked:
"Where is the PROOF that the liberal agenda works?"
If you mean a neo-con like W, no, but what's the difference between Bush and Obama, politically? They both have ignored the law, stolen people's wealth, invaded sovereign countries, increased the size of federal government, sacrificed American lives to advance the New World Order, not to mention that they lied their asses off to the American public. George W was much different as governor of Texas. Just as Obama was much different as a Senator or as a campaigner. They ALL lie to get elected.
Since what happened in Florida in 2000, what have either party done to ensure an accurate vote count? Instituted electronic voting machines. Gee, those ought to be more reliable... "Integrity of the 2006 elections cannot be ensured." GAO
I'd mention that both Republicans and Democrats have worked together in bi-partisan harmony and compromise to make it harder for a third party to compete in the election process but I don't think too many here are for competition.
The question could very well be asked:
"Where is the PROOF that the liberal agenda works?"
Uncultivated
Well-Known Member
Are you old enough to remember the Reagan presidency? He reduced taxes, and the end result was that the tax system became waaaaaay MORE progressive, tax revenues to the federal government doubled, and full employment. Sure seems like it works to me!
canndo
Well-Known Member
And Reagan drove the debt and deficit up more I believe than any other president up to that time.
Uncultivated
Well-Known Member
Total debt was $4 trillion by the end of his presidency. Very cheap by todays standards, if you want to blame Reagan.
But the real blame is with congress. After the tax "cuts", the economy took off. I say "cuts", because what was cut was the tax rates. Actual tax revenues to the federal government skyrocketed. Tax revenues grew at 10-12%, year after year, for the rest of his presidency and beyond. So why did the debt go up? Because congress increased spending by MORE! If they could have kept spending increased to inflation rate, or even 2-3 times the inflation rate, we would've been in great shape, with no debt to speak of. But no, they had to increase spending by more like 15-20% annually. Why? Because a congressmen's power comes from spending money.
So again, tax "cuts" increased tax revenues. If you insist I'll go and find you the data from the IRS itself, although most people who argue politics like this have seen it before. Therefore kinda hard to blame tax cuts for deficit, isn't it?
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
londonfog
Well-Known Member
glad you saw that too
Uncultivated
Well-Known Member
It is absolutely true. With less punityive tax rates, it became beneficial for rich people to put their money to work rather than shelter it. That creates both jobs and tax revenues.
Tell me, honestly, is it that you hate rich people? Does the idea of some rich guy owning a company where you have to go work, offend you? Just an honest question. Personally, if my working to make some rich guy richer gives me the means to care for my family, I'm grateful. I don't blame someone for being rich. I wish I was. Maybe someday I will be? You never know...
londonfog
Well-Known Member
I work for myself...my problem is when others don't take the money that they make off the backs of others and not put the money back in the USA...sheltering your money in offshore accounts seem to be the American way now..hell I called BOA the other day and the bastards had me talking to someone in India...I'm now in the process of moving my accounts to another bank(s)..outsourcing seems to be the way for your larger corporations....but how would you know you enjoy working for the rich..classic
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
But it didn't have that effect. You can't just say things and have them come true because they sound good. Tax revenues were pretty much the same when Reagan entered office and when he left office. What got bigger is debt.
No. I just hate it when people state things as facts that are not facts.
No. Own my own business. That doesn't apply to me.
That's nice. However that doesn't change the fact that what you said wasn't true.
Uncultivated
Well-Known Member
LOL okay if I dig up the data showing that it is indeed true, will it matter in the least or will you just fluff it off?
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Uncultivated-
1. (of land) Not used for growing crops.
2. (of a person) Not highly educated.
both of these definition of your names means you have no business on a grow site nor in the political forum...judging by the name you chose lets us know all we need...you have now been moved to the joke area...enjoy
1. (of land) Not used for growing crops.
2. (of a person) Not highly educated.
both of these definition of your names means you have no business on a grow site nor in the political forum...judging by the name you chose lets us know all we need...you have now been moved to the joke area...enjoy
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
Well I've looked it up before and know it's not true. You can't show me proof of something that isn't true.
Uncultivated
Well-Known Member
I see... because I do not agree with you, then I have no right to be here. So typical, for a leftist...
Uncultivated
Well-Known Member
LOL that's what I thought.
canndo
Well-Known Member
If the rich actually paid their fair share I wouldn't have any problem with them. Why do you defend the rich when they of all people don't need your help? It is the poor who need help, why not defend them?
canndo
Well-Known Member
It is ever so convenient to praise a president for the good things that happen and blame his congress for the bad. I recall that the president has to sign bills into law, he is rarely forced to accept congressional mandates.
We do not need austerity measures. All we really need are 300 million middle fingers turned up at the bankers. DEFAULT on all the debt and make the bankers implode. Most people are sincere enough and would like to pay off all their debt, but at this point there needs to be a reset. Debt Jubilee
We don't need the bankers anyway. Money is just paper, no different than Monopoly.
We don't need the bankers anyway. Money is just paper, no different than Monopoly.