Ann Rand: “The government was set to protect man from criminals-and the Constitution was written to protect man from government. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government-as an explicit declaration that the individual rights supersede any public or social power.”
Supreme court Justice William Rehnquist: “It is always time consuming, frequently, and not infrequently impossible to run successfully the legislative gauntlet and have enacted some facet of one’s own deeply felt value judgments. It is even more difficult for either a single individual or indeed for a large group of individuals to succeed in having such a value judgment embodied in the Constitution. All of these burdens and difficulties are entirely consistent with the notion of a democratic society. It should not be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be easier just because the individual in question is a judge. & The living Constitution is genuinely corrosive of the fundamental values of our democratic society.”
Read it and weep. Oblamea is using smoke and mirrors.
Washington, D.C., May 04, 2012 – The latest employment numbers from the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reflects the despair felt by America’s unemployed, with an increased number of working age Americans giving up on finding any kind of job.
Despite an official employment rate that dropped one-tenth of a percent and the addition of 115,000 jobs in April, America’s jobless have heard this story before and they know from personal experience those numbers are meaningless.
“In their lives, the only numbers that matter are the stack of unpaid bills, the balance in their dwindling checking account and the dollars they can scrape together for food and fuel,” said UCubed Executive Director Rick Sloan. “Their biggest fear is hitting a ZERO – zero income, a zero balance at the bank and zero bills paid.
“When the real number of unemployed workers increased in April by 295,000 to 26.7 million and the real unemployment rate became 16.6 percent, America’s jobless knew who the real zeros were,” said Sloan.
ibshame said...
BobMke
Your godfather Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times while in office and George H.W. Bush said "Read my lips, no new taxes" and of course he soon learned right away that was not going to work. So what is your point?====== Answer to this was explained on another one of my posts from May 1st. I'll post it again.
BobMKE said...
In 1982 Congress wanted to raise taxes and promised it would cut federal spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. Reagan agreed to this because they wouldn't mess with his defense budget. The new taxes went into effect and Congress never cut spending by a penny. The same thing happened to Bush I.
davisss13 said...
Republicans soil every forum they visit, vomiting their bull across the net with absolutely no concern for truth or common decency
Now I will do what Joneses did and recycle my May 1st post and the silence was deafing on it.
See how you guys handle this one. Attack? No substance, no logic, and cherry picking.
Reaganomics is really supply side economics.
Demand side economics has been proven NOT to work, because if taxing yourself into prosperity worked, then USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela would be economic powerhouses... But they just aren't. In fact they are pretty much failures. China is successful because it embraced capitalism. Due to increased regulation, a true supply side scenario in the US is not really possible, but the best example of supply side working is... When taxes are raised - revenue to the treasury tends to fall When taxes are lowered - revenue tends to rise. It's counter intuitive to a point, but it's the same concept that Toyota makes more money selling $15K cars than Rolls Royce makes selling $300K cars... Volume trumps the rate. In other words, lower taxes create more activity, which brings in more money Higher taxes stifle activity, which brings in less. This is the basic premise of Reaganomics. Reagan would have worked better if he'd had an unstoppable Republican majority in both Houses of Congress like Obama has had. But Reagan had a Democrat-controlled House and a lot of liberal GOP Senators to deal with. In order to get his priority policies enacted - re-buildup of the military, supply-side tax cuts, strongly opposing the Soviet Union around the world, etc - he had to compromise with the Democrats
And, so, here we are today. Thirty years ago, we were the greatest creditor nation on Earth. We had everything. Today, we are the greatest debtor nation on Earth and communist China is our banker. And, we provide China with scrap metal so that it can supply the world and us with finished goods instead of the other way around.
Ibshame & dude_abides just used the "Best defense is offense" routine on Joneses AGAIN. Guys, go back and address what he listed from the noted people's quotes. Also address his other points using logic, substance, and do not use emotional statements, bumper sticker quotes, and platitudes.
Joneses, they won't do it just like the last few callouts on them.
I have a 2009 article from the Wall Street Journal which indicates in part that taxing the top 2% (sorry 1% libs) of the wealthiest Americans at a rate of 100% meaning taking everything they’ve got and assuming they still go on working and investing for basically a zero after-tax income-would run the federal government for less than six (6) months.
It doesn’t take an economist to realize that if you won’t cut spending, and you can’t get enough from just taxing the rich, then the only thing left is expending tax increases to the middle class.
VAT anyone? (Value-added tax) In 2008 Oblamea said the VAT isn’t on the table.
April 21, 2010 Oblamea is now open to VAT. On Aug. 30, 2011 Alan B Krueger, OB’s new economic advisor suggested the tax two (2) years from now. WOW No cuts, no income tax hikes, just pay more on everything that you buy. What a deal. Then the Oblamea gang can honestly say with a straight face they never voted for a tax increase and they fought hard to maintain government services and programs. (Liberal speak)
Demand side economics has been proven NOT to work, because if taxing yourself into prosperity worked, then USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela would be economic powerhouses...
But they just aren't. In fact they are pretty much failures. China is successful because it embraced capitalism.
Due to increased regulation, a true supply side scenario in the US is not really possible, but the best example of supply side working is...
When taxes are raised - revenue to the treasury tends to fall
When taxes are lowered - revenue tends to rise.
It's counter intuitive to a point, but it's the same concept that Toyota makes more money selling $15K cars than Rolls Royce makes selling $300K cars...
Volume trumps the rate. In other words, lower taxes create more activity, which brings in more money
Higher taxes stifle activity, which brings in less.
This is the basic premise of Reaganomics. Reagan would have worked better if he'd had an unstoppable Republican majority in both Houses of Congress like Obama has had.
But Reagan had a Democrat-controlled House and a lot of liberal GOP Senators to deal with. In order to get his priority policies enacted - re-buildup of the military, supply-side tax cuts, strongly opposing the Soviet Union around the world, etc - he had to compromise with the Democrats
And, so, here we are today. Thirty years ago, we were the greatest creditor nation on Earth. We had everything. Today, we are the greatest debtor nation on Earth and communist China is our banker. And, we provide China with scrap metal so that it can supply the world and us with finished goods instead of the other way around.
To: Justonewoman. This Country is going under and our kids and grandkids are going to pay a lot more then we have and are paying.
Read my 7:35pm post.I rest my case again. You did everything I said people will do when they don't use substance and logic. You cherry picked Jones points and then used the best defense is offense routine. You liberals are soooooo predictable
Deregulation
Ann Rand: “The government was set to protect man from criminals-and the Constitution was written to protect man from government. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government-as an explicit declaration that the individual rights supersede any public or social power.”
Supreme court Justice William Rehnquist: “It is always time consuming, frequently, and not infrequently impossible to run successfully the legislative gauntlet and have enacted some facet of one’s own deeply felt value judgments. It is even more difficult for either a single individual or indeed for a large group of individuals to succeed in having such a value judgment embodied in the Constitution. All of these burdens and difficulties are entirely consistent with the notion of a democratic society. It should not be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be easier just because the individual in question is a judge. & The living Constitution is genuinely corrosive of the fundamental values of our democratic society.”
Graduation
Welcome back Al. Keep them short. Or at least shorter.
Selection Process
Read it and weep. Oblamea is using smoke and mirrors.
Washington, D.C., May 04, 2012 – The latest employment numbers from the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reflects the despair felt by America’s unemployed, with an increased number of working age Americans giving up on finding any kind of job.
Despite an official employment rate that dropped one-tenth of a percent and the addition of 115,000 jobs in April, America’s jobless have heard this story before and they know from personal experience those numbers are meaningless.
“In their lives, the only numbers that matter are the stack of unpaid bills, the balance in their dwindling checking account and the dollars they can scrape together for food and fuel,” said UCubed Executive Director Rick Sloan. “Their biggest fear is hitting a ZERO – zero income, a zero balance at the bank and zero bills paid.
“When the real number of unemployed workers increased in April by 295,000 to 26.7 million and the real unemployment rate became 16.6 percent, America’s jobless knew who the real zeros were,” said Sloan.
Selection Process
ibshame said... BobMke Your godfather Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times while in office and George H.W. Bush said "Read my lips, no new taxes" and of course he soon learned right away that was not going to work. So what is your point?====== Answer to this was explained on another one of my posts from May 1st. I'll post it again.
BobMKE said... In 1982 Congress wanted to raise taxes and promised it would cut federal spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. Reagan agreed to this because they wouldn't mess with his defense budget. The new taxes went into effect and Congress never cut spending by a penny. The same thing happened to Bush I.
Milton Friedman or John Maynard Keynes?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/
Also nice dodge again regarding my last post. You are sooooooo predictable. Your new name isibshame-The Artful Dodger.
Selection Process
Ibshame & dude_abides
I rest my case.
davisss13 said... Republicans soil every forum they visit, vomiting their bull across the net with absolutely no concern for truth or common decency
Now I will do what Joneses did and recycle my May 1st post and the silence was deafing on it.
See how you guys handle this one. Attack? No substance, no logic, and cherry picking.
Reaganomics is really supply side economics. Demand side economics has been proven NOT to work, because if taxing yourself into prosperity worked, then USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela would be economic powerhouses... But they just aren't. In fact they are pretty much failures. China is successful because it embraced capitalism. Due to increased regulation, a true supply side scenario in the US is not really possible, but the best example of supply side working is... When taxes are raised - revenue to the treasury tends to fall When taxes are lowered - revenue tends to rise. It's counter intuitive to a point, but it's the same concept that Toyota makes more money selling $15K cars than Rolls Royce makes selling $300K cars... Volume trumps the rate. In other words, lower taxes create more activity, which brings in more money Higher taxes stifle activity, which brings in less. This is the basic premise of Reaganomics. Reagan would have worked better if he'd had an unstoppable Republican majority in both Houses of Congress like Obama has had. But Reagan had a Democrat-controlled House and a lot of liberal GOP Senators to deal with. In order to get his priority policies enacted - re-buildup of the military, supply-side tax cuts, strongly opposing the Soviet Union around the world, etc - he had to compromise with the Democrats And, so, here we are today. Thirty years ago, we were the greatest creditor nation on Earth. We had everything. Today, we are the greatest debtor nation on Earth and communist China is our banker. And, we provide China with scrap metal so that it can supply the world and us with finished goods instead of the other way around.
Selection Process
Ibshame & dude_abides just used the "Best defense is offense" routine on Joneses AGAIN. Guys, go back and address what he listed from the noted people's quotes. Also address his other points using logic, substance, and do not use emotional statements, bumper sticker quotes, and platitudes.
Joneses, they won't do it just like the last few callouts on them.
Slashing Tires
I have a 2009 article from the Wall Street Journal which indicates in part that taxing the top 2% (sorry 1% libs) of the wealthiest Americans at a rate of 100% meaning taking everything they’ve got and assuming they still go on working and investing for basically a zero after-tax income-would run the federal government for less than six (6) months.
It doesn’t take an economist to realize that if you won’t cut spending, and you can’t get enough from just taxing the rich, then the only thing left is expending tax increases to the middle class.
VAT anyone? (Value-added tax) In 2008 Oblamea said the VAT isn’t on the table. April 21, 2010 Oblamea is now open to VAT. On Aug. 30, 2011 Alan B Krueger, OB’s new economic advisor suggested the tax two (2) years from now. WOW No cuts, no income tax hikes, just pay more on everything that you buy. What a deal. Then the Oblamea gang can honestly say with a straight face they never voted for a tax increase and they fought hard to maintain government services and programs. (Liberal speak)
The Tin Man
Reaganomics is really supply side economics.
Demand side economics has been proven NOT to work, because if taxing yourself into prosperity worked, then USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela would be economic powerhouses... But they just aren't. In fact they are pretty much failures. China is successful because it embraced capitalism. Due to increased regulation, a true supply side scenario in the US is not really possible, but the best example of supply side working is... When taxes are raised - revenue to the treasury tends to fall When taxes are lowered - revenue tends to rise. It's counter intuitive to a point, but it's the same concept that Toyota makes more money selling $15K cars than Rolls Royce makes selling $300K cars... Volume trumps the rate. In other words, lower taxes create more activity, which brings in more money Higher taxes stifle activity, which brings in less. This is the basic premise of Reaganomics. Reagan would have worked better if he'd had an unstoppable Republican majority in both Houses of Congress like Obama has had. But Reagan had a Democrat-controlled House and a lot of liberal GOP Senators to deal with. In order to get his priority policies enacted - re-buildup of the military, supply-side tax cuts, strongly opposing the Soviet Union around the world, etc - he had to compromise with the Democrats
And, so, here we are today. Thirty years ago, we were the greatest creditor nation on Earth. We had everything. Today, we are the greatest debtor nation on Earth and communist China is our banker. And, we provide China with scrap metal so that it can supply the world and us with finished goods instead of the other way around.
To: Justonewoman. This Country is going under and our kids and grandkids are going to pay a lot more then we have and are paying.
The Tin Man
Apparently, I'm suppose to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Oblamea does with mine, my kids, and my grandkids.
The Announcement
mountain,
Read my 7:35pm post.I rest my case again. You did everything I said people will do when they don't use substance and logic. You cherry picked Jones points and then used the best defense is offense routine. You liberals are soooooo predictable