(04-07-2010 11:23 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Raegen's economic policy was a failure too, that's what happened Bork. He did the exact same thing W. Bush did, lowered taxes while increasing defense spending and the deficit skyrocketed. And George Bush the first had to clean up the mess and got kicked out of office after one term for it. Just like Barack will have to clean up after Bush the second now. That's the thing about lowering taxes, by the time it becomes a problem, you're already out of office.

And no Bork, again, many, many people said the evidence was not legitimate. I am denying what you call facts, because that's not what they are, they never were.

I'll ask one last time since you choose to not directly back up your statements.

What governments came out with different intelligence on Iraq?

Did Saddam violate numerous U.N. resolutions?

Was he still shooting at our planes?

Still waiting for your explanation of the plural wars.

And, Obama passing a multi-trillion dollar budget busting new entitlement is cleaning up messes? Really?

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth...agtxct.htm

From the House. It shows how after taxes were cut by Reagan, individual revenues went up.

(04-07-2010 10:14 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  He did not make us safer. That's a ridiculous notion. Starting unprovoked wars for no reason does not make you safer. There were no WMD's, get off Fox news and you would know that. They were not facts, there was one, very unreliable source used. And this is not about hindsight being 20/20, there were many people who said it at the time. This is not new news, there were many people who argued before we went to war that there were no WMD's.

Lowering taxes to put us in a massive defecit does not make us safer. The trickle down effect is a myth. This is a service economy Klake, it's not 1940. Lowering taxes for the wealthy does not help the middle class.

Refusing to lower our dependence on the middle east for oil does not make us safer. Refusing to promote science over religion, refusing to go forward with technology, stem cell research & renewable energy does not make safer. Setting us years behind other countries does not make us safer. It makes us weak. He embarrassed us on an international stage and only tarnished our reputation abroad, while making the country a less safe place to live. He was an epic failure.

:clap2: Great post!

Re: Revenues going up:

Quote:The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn

i'm generally centrist thinking, but huskiefan84 i can't say i disagree with HF84's last 2 posts.

(04-07-2010 04:04 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Re: Revenues going up:

Quote:The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn

So, after Reagan championed, and got lower marginal rates, revenues still doubled. Clinton raised rates and the revenues increased by basically the same amount as the previous decade.

Since you didn't cite your source, like I did, I'll provide yours.

http://home.netcom.com/~rdavis2/taxcuts.html

People can compare the House report I cited, versus the blogger you cited.

You can get the numbers I provided anywhere. They aren't his opinion. The number are facts. The revenues go up every decade, but the deficit sky rocketed due to his tax cuts. Just as they did under W. Bush. G.W. Bush had to raise taxes to fix the problem, just as Obama will have to let the new tax cuts expire.

You can't incrase spending & lower taxes at the same time as those two tried to do. Both failed over the long run. Of course in the short term it looks good to the uneducated voter because all they see is a lower tax bill and not the consequences of it.

(04-08-2010 08:40 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  You can get the numbers I provided anywhere. They aren't his opinion. The number are facts. The revenues go up every decade, but the deficit sky rocketed due to his tax cuts. Just as they did under W. Bush. G.W. Bush had to raise taxes to fix the problem, just as Obama will have to let the new tax cuts expir

You can't incrase spending & lower taxes at the same time as those two tried to do. Both failed over the long run. Of course in the short term it looks good to the uneducated voter because all they see is a lower tax bill and not the consequences of it.

Obama is raising taxes to spend more. Healthcare will cost more making a bigger government. Bush increased spending(which is wrong). Taxes are not being raised to reduce debt, debt is increasing because we spending more than we are collecting. We need to spend LESS.

Right now, Tim Gietner is in China trying to sell our debt agian. China is balking but we will increase interest and the will take it on. Some day, they won't. Then what will we do.

(04-08-2010 08:40 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  You can get the numbers I provided anywhere. They aren't his opinion. The number are facts. The revenues go up every decade, but the deficit sky rocketed due to his tax cuts. Just as they did under W. Bush. G.W. Bush had to raise taxes to fix the problem, just as Obama will have to let the new tax cuts expire.

You can't incrase spending & lower taxes at the same time as those two tried to do. Both failed over the long run. Of course in the short term it looks good to the uneducated voter because all they see is a lower tax bill and not the consequences of it.

The deficit went up because of SPENDING.

So, you agree that the revenues went up, even though taxes were cut. And, when Clinton raised taxes, revenues ticked down ever so slightly. That seems to clearly illustrate that lower rates raise the most revenue because the economy is operating more efficiently and productive with the lower rates.

And, in fact, the liberals should like the 80's because even with Reagan's tax cuts, the upper brackets overall tax burden increased. They paid more taxes.

This year, per AP, only 50% of households are going to pay ANY income tax. How is that a sustainable or just model?

So, Obama is dramatically increasing spending through the new health care entitlement. That is going to help the deficit how? Remember, even CBO said his plan is bust and increases the deficit, while raising taxes on everyone, including the middle class.

Yes, of course I agree revenues went up, that's not up for debate. What I'm debating is that his tax cuts are not the reason why. They had always gone up, it had nothing to do with his tax cuts.

You have no proof showing that what Clinton or Raegen did had anything to do with revenues. As I've shown they still went up nearly the same amount in the 90's, as they did in the 80's. 3% difference could be caused by anything.

99% to 96%, that clearly illustrates your point that lower taxes create the most revenue? Are you kidding me? By that logic, in the 70's it jumped 160%, so I should be able to say that Raegen's tax cuts clearly ruined the economy and lowered the increase in revenues by nearly 60%. Of course I don't believe that, but it's no different then your argument in regards to Clinton's policies.

Clearly there are a lot of variables involved in this equation of taxes, revenues, spending, economy, etc. One other aspect to look at is what was the spending being done on during different administrations. During the Reagan admin, spending increased in some areas (military), and was decreased in other areas (programs). I guess it all depends on what you consider important to spend our tax dollars on.

(04-08-2010 11:40 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Yes, of course I agree revenues went up, that's not up for debate. What I'm debating is that his tax cuts are not the reason why. They had always gone up, it had nothing to do with his tax cuts.

You have no proof showing that what Clinton or Raegen did had anything to do with revenues. As I've shown they still went up nearly the same amount in the 90's, as they did in the 80's. 3% difference could be caused by anything.

99% to 96%, that clearly illustrates your point that lower taxes create the most revenue? Are you kidding me? By that logic, in the 70's it jumped 160%, so I should be able to say that Raegen's tax cuts clearly ruined the economy and lowered the increase in revenues by nearly 60%. Of course I don't believe that, but it's no different then your argument in regards to Clinton's policies.

I'm not arguing that the 3% difference is meaninful. It isn't. n Clinton and Reagan showed the same growth.

I'm saying that with lower rates in the 80s, the revenue was the same. Clinton raised taxes, but it did not increase revenue growth compared to the growth under Reagan. So, Clinton's tax increases were not effective in raising the amount of revenue coming into the government.

(04-08-2010 12:09 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 11:40 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Yes, of course I agree revenues went up, that's not up for debate. What I'm debating is that his tax cuts are not the reason why. They had always gone up, it had nothing to do with his tax cuts.

You have no proof showing that what Clinton or Raegen did had anything to do with revenues. As I've shown they still went up nearly the same amount in the 90's, as they did in the 80's. 3% difference could be caused by anything.

99% to 96%, that clearly illustrates your point that lower taxes create the most revenue? Are you kidding me? By that logic, in the 70's it jumped 160%, so I should be able to say that Raegen's tax cuts clearly ruined the economy and lowered the increase in revenues by nearly 60%. Of course I don't believe that, but it's no different then your argument in regards to Clinton's policies.

I'm not arguing that the 3% difference is meaninful. It isn't. n Clinton and Reagan showed the same growth.

I'm saying that with lower rates in the 80s, the revenue was the same. Clinton raised taxes, but it did not increase revenue growth compared to the growth under Reagan. So, Clinton's tax increases were not effective in raising the amount of revenue coming into the government.

Other issues questions are for each administration are: Did deficit increase? Was there a balanced budget? What did they actually spend our tax dollars on? Did the increased revenue help the middle to lower classes as well as the upper classes?

(04-06-2010 09:44 AM)klake87 Wrote:  

(04-05-2010 04:06 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  President Obama recently expanded oil & gas drilling in several areas of the US continental shelf; not that the rethugs who post here would deign to give him any credit for doing so.

I'll believe it when I see it. He has no intention of letting drilling begin. We should be able to drill anywhere in the U.S. as long as it is done safely. I love the people who are worried about an oil spill. When was the last oil spill from a rig?? Exon Valdez was a tanker. Other tankers have run aground. All the shut off valves are below the water and now is very safe for the environment. Also, the Drilling Rigs create additional eco system value by creating an artificial ref.

Wow. I guess it isn't as safe as it seems. This is causing a nice artificial ref? for the environment. What is the cost of this oil spill to the environment, the economy in the gulf, and to the people who died in the explosion. Underwater leaks are making it extra hard to cap.

Timely as always Klake. Humorous find 17.

President Obama on April 2, 2010: "I don’t agree with the notion that we shouldn’t do anything. It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills didn’t come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore."

From:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...pills.html

(04-30-2010 12:37 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  President Obama on April 2, 2010: "I don’t agree with the notion that we shouldn’t do anything. It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills didn’t come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore."

From:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...pills.html

Everyone knows we can't just stop drilling. But Klake and many republicans seem to think it is humorous and a waste of money that environmentalists want to look at other options. Drill Baby Drill!

(04-30-2010 01:00 PM)NIU17 Wrote:  

(04-30-2010 12:37 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  President Obama on April 2, 2010: "I don’t agree with the notion that we shouldn’t do anything. It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills didn’t come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore."

From:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...pills.html

Everyone knows we can't just stop drilling. But Klake and many republicans seem to think it is humorous and a waste of money that environmentalists want to look at other options. Drill Baby Drill!

First of all, I am not a Republican. Second, I am pissed that BP did not have the shut off valves installed on this well. Supposedly, there is one more well that does not have this installed. BP should be fined Billions of dollars for clean up and to off set lost revenues for the gulf communities. All safety technology should be used to safeguard our environment. If any drilling is granted, BP should not be allowed to bid on the areas.

All off shore drilling should be required to have the latest and greatest technology for safety. BPs actions are unacceptable.

Hmm.. a government entity fining a business billions of dollars? I mean.. I was told raising gas prices would slow the economy down, if BP is forking over billions I think it's safe to say their going to charge more for gas.
Just doesn't seem to make much sense to me Klake. Best to just let businesses run on their own without any government involvement. I'm sure the consumer will just choose not to use BP gasoline, that should be incentive enough alone to convince them to do a better job next time.

(04-30-2010 01:19 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Hmm.. a government entity fining a business billions of dollars? I mean.. I was told raising gas prices would slow the economy down, if BP is forking over billions I think it's safe to say their going to charge more for gas.
Just doesn't seem to make much sense to me Klake. Best to just let businesses run on their own without any government involvement. I'm sure the consumer will just choose not to use BP gasoline, that should be incentive enough alone to convince them to do a better job next time.

Your premise is wrong as usual. BP could charge $10 per gallon to recover the money they lose by making a poor business decision. I guess if you are going to go to BP and pay $10, I am going to the Shell across the street that is at $3.09. They can only charge market rate. Their profits will be greatly down for a few years. My advice is you should have sold BP stock. Its value will take a hit.

(04-30-2010 01:19 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Hmm.. a government entity fining a business billions of dollars? I mean.. I was told raising gas prices would slow the economy down, if BP is forking over billions I think it's safe to say their going to charge more for gas.
Just doesn't seem to make much sense to me Klake. Best to just let businesses run on their own without any government involvement. I'm sure the consumer will just choose not to use BP gasoline, that should be incentive enough alone to convince them to do a better job next time.

Yes, deregulate everything! Worked for the financial industry.

news is that lawsuits by shrimp industry are already being filed.