barney frank wants to control payroll now

#26
#26
tim said:
I'd like to meet the idiots that vote for Bawney Fwank.
Click to expand...

I hope I never meet anyone who has ever voted for Frank.

site2402.JPG
 
#28
#28
rjd970 said:
We can contrast that with the idiots that voted for Bush to be president.
Click to expand...

apples and oranges.

Bush had better grades than Kerry or Gore, plus he spent time in the real world before going into politics.
 
#29
#29
MG1968 said:
apples and oranges.

Bush had better grades than Kerry or Gore, plus he spent time in the real world before going into politics.
Click to expand...

Given his family name, I would disagree with your "real world" before politics statement. If everything that happened in the last 8 years went down with Kerry or Gore sitting the oval office your head would be exploding harking about what an abysmal job they did.

The idiot statement works both ways here.
 
#30
#30
so has your head exploded yet?

3 months into your boy's administration and the left still can't stop blaming Bush
 
#32
#32
rjd970 said:
Given his family name, I would disagree with your "real world" before politics statement. If everything that happened in the last 8 years went down with Kerry or Gore sitting the oval office your head would be exploding harking about what an abysmal job they did.

The idiot statement works both ways here.
Click to expand...

if Kerry and Gore were smart enough to know that lowering income taxes actually increased revenues to the treasury, I don't think my head would have exploded.

the same goes for Obama. I was calling him a socialist long before Election Day and was routinely criticized for it. Now that he's announced government takeovers of banks, auto makers and energy production, I'm not looking like the idiot people like you once thought I was.
 
#33
#33
MG1968 said:
if Kerry and Gore were smart enough to know that lowering income taxes actually increased revenues to the treasury, I don't think my head would have exploded.

the same goes for Obama. I was calling him a socialist long before Election Day and was routinely criticized for it. Now that he's announced government takeovers of banks, auto makers and energy production, I'm not looking like the idiot people like you once thought I was.
Click to expand...

First off, I never considered you an idiot. And I find the bolded part of your statement laughable given your past statements. I would also like to see your evidence that revenue increases were a direct result of lower taxes. And lets talk deficits...go look up what deficits did between 1980-1992, 1992-2000, and 2000-2008 and justify that those tax breaks republicans tell us over and over again is the solution to everything actually work. And while your at it, go ahead and show us that if the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, medicare reimbursements to physicians, cost of disaster responses and adjustments to the AMT are included...as they should be in the interest of transparency...Bush actually regularly ran up trillion dollar deficits that you incessantly harp on Obama about. Of which, have alot to do with getting rid of these accounting gimmicks the Bush administration used to hide what the true Budget picture really was.
 
#34
#34
tell you what, why don't you show us all how tax increases lead to economic prosperity?

how does having the second highest corporate tax rate in the world provide an incentive for employers to not relocate to China or Bangladesh?

tax cut work if there's a commensurate decrease in spending, something that didn't happen under Reagan and Bush 43. Clinton had a GOP led Congress that forced him into fiscal responsibility through a balanced budget, military cuts by Clinton helped his bottom line as well.

I will continue to harp on Obama's budget as long as it remains rooted in socialism. You can continue to defend him all you want.
 
#35
#35
MG1968 said:
tell you what, why don't you show us all how tax increases lead to economic prosperity?

how does having the second highest corporate tax rate in the world provide an incentive for employers to not relocate to China or Bangladesh?

tax cut work if there's a commensurate decrease in spending, something that didn't happen under Reagan and Bush 43. Clinton had a GOP led Congress that forced him into fiscal responsibility through a balanced budget, military cuts by Clinton helped his bottom line as well.

I will continue to harp on Obama's budget as long as it remains rooted in socialism. You can continue to defend him all you want.
Click to expand...

I have continually showed how the tax system under Clinton made was more fiscally responsible while maintaining healthy and steady economic growth. I see no point in posting it again because I already know the same standard responses I am going to get. It was the GOP congress that really gets the credit, Clinton was benefiting from tax revenues from increased investment spurred by the Reagan/Bush years, blah blah blah....the numbers don't lie though. Over the last 30 years, deficits have soared under every republican administration and then they tell us they are the party of fiscal responsibility.

Of course companies are going to relocate businesses to China or Bangladesh for tax breaks and cheap labor. The fact still remains that those countries don't give two sh!ts about their people, and have developed a system of sweat shops and glorified slave labor to spur economic growth. The conditions of the working class there are abysmal, and it has created some sort of economical smoke screen of a neo-capitalistic utopia where the masses are kept in check by communist government control, depriving liberty at the cost of basic human rights. The elite and government officials get all the prosperity while everyobdy else suffers. History tells us a lot here, and reading about similar fundamental Friedimite experiments that were conducted in Argentina and Chile in the 70's and 80's under the umbrella of tyrannical government control had disasterous effects. Similarly, in such cases, American business went in and took advantage and created an economic wasteland out of the country, while the few benefited at disproportionate levels.

Pure capitalism, like pure socialism, doesn't work. History has shown time and again, a system where the vast majority of the wealth is controlled by the few ferments revolution and economic collapse. Just the same way where everybody is equal stiffles innovation and and facilitates economic collapse. I'm in favor of where the corporate taxes are now, and increasing taxes for companies shipping jobs overseas where their tax rate will be equal to what it would have been to keep the jobs here. Our system works for the wealthy and the working class, that is undisputable, and should remain that way.

I don't agree with everything Obama has done, for sure, but harping on the disasterous budgetary effects of his more socialist policies while ignoring the disasterous effects of the more capitalistic policies is dishonest at best.
 
#36
#36
rjd970 said:
I have continually showed how the tax system under Clinton made was more fiscally responsible while maintaining healthy and steady economic growth. I see no point in posting it again because I already know the same standard responses I am going to get. It was the GOP congress that really gets the credit, Clinton was benefiting from tax revenues from increased investment spurred by the Reagan/Bush years, blah blah blah....the numbers don't lie though. Over the last 30 years, deficits have soared under every republican administration and then they tell us they are the party of fiscal responsibility.

Of course companies are going to relocate businesses to China or Bangladesh for tax breaks and cheap labor. The fact still remains that those countries don't give two sh!ts about their people, and have developed a system of sweat shops and glorified slave labor to spur economic growth. The conditions of the working class there are abysmal, and it has created some sort of economical smoke screen of a neo-capitalistic utopia where the masses are kept in check by communist government control, depriving liberty at the cost of basic human rights. The elite and government officials get all the prosperity while everyobdy else suffers. History tells us a lot here, and reading about similar fundamental Friedimite experiments that were conducted in Argentina and Chile in the 70's and 80's under the umbrella of tyrannical government control had disasterous effects. Similarly, in such cases, American business went in and took advantage and created an economic wasteland out of the country, while the few benefited at disproportionate levels.

Pure capitalism, like pure socialism, doesn't work. History has shown time and again, a system where the vast majority of the wealth is controlled by the few ferments revolution and economic collapse. Just the same way where everybody is equal stiffles innovation and and facilitates economic collapse. I'm in favor of where the corporate taxes are now, and increasing taxes for companies shipping jobs overseas where their tax rate will be equal to what it would have been to keep the jobs here. Our system works for the wealthy and the working class, that is undisputable, and should remain that way.

I don't agree with everything Obama has done, for sure, but harping on the disasterous budgetary effects of his more socialist policies while ignoring the disasterous effects of the more capitalistic policies is dishonest at best.
Click to expand...

When has socialism ever been effective?
 
#38
#38
rjd970 said:
define "effective"?

On balance, I would say more capitalistic societies fair best. But my point is either (socialism, capitalism) in its purest form is disasterous.
Click to expand...

Killing over 100 million people.... in the name of equality.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top