cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Advisor

Re: The trouble with liberals as explained by a long time democrat

Some not quite so optomistic.

 

He becomes more dour every Monday morning:

 

http://kunstler.com/blog/2010/05/welcome-home-to-slum-nation.html

 

 

Veteran Advisor

Re: Great strategy

an exceptional post from an exceptional poster child. Someone that both takes exception to the success of the Reagan tax cuts, and also is the exception to what Reagan said about liberals.

Senior Advisor

Re: It simple words

Obama inherited an economic calamity and has so far been in a rescue mode. Surely you didn't expect him to solve our economic and budgetary woes without some strife?

 

On top of that please consider the absolute and complete opposition by the right to get anything done. Plus the constant attempt to diminish him all the time.

 

Hopefully Obama will let the Bush tax cuts expire and bring the country back toward solvency.  Yes there needs to be spending cuts but I think we ought to start with addressing the problems that caused the deficits in the first place. Military actions that was taken off budget and not included in Bush budgets.  A surtax for war financing so that the public is paying for the ventures. Thus they will decide if they want to pay for it and the corporate excesses that are raping the treasury.

 

Basically our economical  problems can be laid at the foot of deregulation and ignored regulation.  Human beings will defraud each other if nobody is watching and nobody was watching.

Senior Contributor

Re: It simple words

"Human beings will defraud each other if nobody is watching and nobody was watching."

 

How true.  The hard part is getting humans in the governmnet to do the watching and not come under the rule of those doing the defrauding.  Maybe we need an agency to watch the agency that is suppose to be doing the watching.

Senior Advisor

Re: BASICALLY

We are basically living under the Reagan tax cut philosophy since his election in 1980. In that time period we have had periods of higher revenues and periods of lower revenues. I do not agree that higher revenues are the product of tax cuts.

 

For example we had noticable revenue increases during three presidents. JFK, Reagan, and Bill Clinton. Kennedy and Reagan cit taxes and Clinton net increased them. What did the three presidents have in common?

 

Charisma. They exuded confidence and all three were positive and wanted to accomplish great things. Thus they all aroused optimism among the people and the people responded  accordingly.

 

I don't think tax cuts have anything to do with revenues, but those that share your philosophy want to wrongfully place the credit on tax cuts.  the truth is every one cannot pay less and expect more.

 

 

 

 

Senior Advisor

Re: It simple words

First, Mr. Dag, we need to elect people that believe in regulation and  will actively enforce them.

Senior Contributor

Re: BASICALLY

I don't think tax cuts have anything to do with revenues, but those that share your philosophy want to wrongfully place the credit on tax cuts.  the truth is every one cannot pay less and expect more.

 

What Mr Kraft does not understand is, when there are tax cuts business creates more tax payers and bingo the government has more revenue. When taxes are raised there will be fewer tax payers because a recession is coming on.

 

I have the answer to all our problems in government. The people who get no government money are the only ones who can vote. If this would happen many problems with government would go away.

Senior Advisor

Re: BASICALLY

You do not understand. The government represents the people. All of them regardless of financial status.

 

SO! W Bush cut taxes and raised revenues and we have a balanced budget. The truth is it took several years for revenues to return to the level of the Clinton years. So we had net negative revenue flow for the first few years. Those have to be added to the cost of the tax cuts. I wonder if the totality of the 8 bush years even averaged as much as the last Clinton year.

 

Senior Contributor

Re: BASICALLY

Sorry, I do understand. People who receive government money should not be able to vote for their bosses. It worked years ago. The only people who could vote were the ones who owned property. Lets get back to that. All you want to do is spend more. Get the dang spending man.

Senior Advisor

Re: BASICALLY

It's not going to happen.  In fact it's even silly to consider that.  It would be better if stupid folks couldn't vote.