Can someone tell me the amount of debt Regan and the Bush's accumulated? [Archive] - Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums

View Full Version : Can someone tell me the amount of debt Regan and the Bush's accumulated?

10mm-man

11-08-2012, 19:28

I heard it's around $12 Trillion- This can't be true can it? I mean they are such conservatives!

asmo

11-08-2012, 19:44

Define 'debt'

bryjcom

11-08-2012, 19:55

Reagan added about 1.3 trillion.

Bush added about 4.9 trillion.

merl

11-08-2012, 20:10

http://www.multpl.com/u-s-federal-deficit-percent/

http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=lxy&chs=780x384&chf=bg,s,00000000&chco=2e578c&chxt=x,y,x,r,r&chxr=1,-35,5|3,-35,5|4,-35,5&chxp=3,-8.7|4,0&chxtc=0,-800|1,-800|4,-800&chxs=0,989090,12,0,lt,e0e0ee,e0e0ee|1,989090,12,0, lt,e0e0ee,e0e0ee|2,989090|3,989090,12,0,lt,e0e0ee, e0e0ee|4,989090,12,0,t,c0c0cc&chls=3&chm=o,e80a2c,0,12,5|tUS%20Enters%20WW2,989090,0,12 ,12,,r:-10:0|o,e80a2c,0,81,5&chxl=0:|1930|||||1935|||||1940|||||1945|||||1950|| |||1955|||||1960|||||1965|||||1970|||||1975|||||19 80|||||1985|||||1990|||||1995|||||2000|||||2005||| ||2010||2:|1930-12-31|2011-12-31|3:|-8.70%|4:|&chd=e:AAAyBlCXDKD8EvFiGUHHH5IsJeKRLEL2MpNbOOPAPzQl RYSLS9TwUiVVWHW6XtYfZSaEa3bpccdOeBe0fmgZhLh-ixjjkWlIl7mtngoTpFp4qqrdsPtCt1unvawMw.xxykzW0J081u 2h3T4G445r6e7Q8D819o-a.N..,5R3CxmwzujxmvM0A31y4zMxHhRHhTrVmse6u.X4U2P7C 3X1R3h2u5c5R3Cz14K3C162u2j3r3M2PzX4e3h0o0z2P3XyjxR zrzr1czrz1xmuZwUv1wAy4zCzhxwwzwexwzX0e1w3h5R6P716F 1myjyZz1092Fy4n1pmqF

(just a random site I found with a google search)

The raw debt number isn't that meaningful due to inflation. How fast it is growing or shrinking is more meaningful. Chart I linked is deficit/GDP

Can see that during Carter it jumped form the historic (post WW2) 0-2.5% to 2.5-5%. Then during Reagan it jumped even further above 5%. This could be due to taxes being cut without cutting spending or just increasing spending but either way he raised the bar on what was an acceptable deficit.

Can see everything ramp down during Clinton, by the time he was done we were at historic surplus levels.

Then the .com bubble went pop and Bush2 came along. Deficits went right back to Reagan's level then started getting better.

Then everything fell apart again and the deficit is now back to historic levels not seen since WW2.

Everyone since Carter has been spending like mad, except Clinton. And Clinton didn't have a nice 'crisis' during his term.

spqrzilla

11-08-2012, 21:00

On your chart, "down" is bad. Your chart does not appear to include in its calculations the borrowing from social security surpluses. Also deficit isn't debt. Debt is the accumulated deficits.

merl

11-08-2012, 21:25

yep, negative numbers bad. Just harder to quickly say 0 to (-2.5%) so I figured folks would get it. Total number, borrowing from a surplus is just a fancy way of saying tax. Especially when people start talking about means testing SS.

I still care about the deficit number because if that sits at 0 and the economy keeps growing the actual debt drops thanks to inflation. Inflation sure isn't going away.

Ans I suppose my point is that every leader in my lifetime except Clinton has been happy to spend and spend (R) or (D). And Clinton had a nice peace dividend combined with a new tech bubble.

Delfuego

11-08-2012, 21:56

http://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.asp#photo

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/debt2.jpg

Have a graph...

Reagan left with 3 trillion in the hole
Bush Jr came in +3 trillion surplus, and left around 8-10 trillion in the hole depending on who you ask.
In fact if it wasn't for George Sr. tax hike (which got him voted out) we would be in a lot bigger trouble.
All Clinton did was ride the surplus created by GHWB.

Delfuego

11-08-2012, 22:09

10mm-man

11-08-2012, 22:43

Thanks for the explanation guys; since many conservatives won't admit it, i thought I would ask.

So then this graph is correct: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

low drag

11-08-2012, 23:00

Thanks for the explanation guys; since many conservatives won't admit it, i thought I would ask.

So then this graph is correct: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Regan did increase the debt, no doubt about it. Based upon your sig line/resume you are too young to remember. Regan cut taxes and the economy boomed. This is a fact. Now stay with me. To get what he wanted in terms of building up the military he had to compromise with Tip O'Neal (speaker of the house at the time) and we increased all manor of social spending.

You are right, Regan increased the debt due to spending, not due to government receipts (I don't call taxes revenue for the gubmint).

Tax cuts will grow the economy every time. BUT spending increased as well.

If you personally double your salary but quadruple your spending you're still in trouble. That in a nut shell is what DC has been doing for a long time.

10mm-man

11-08-2012, 23:24

Regan did increase the debt, no doubt about it. Based upon your sig line/resume you are too young to remember. Regan cut taxes and the economy boomed. This is a fact. Now stay with me. To get what he wanted in terms of building up the military he had to compromise with Tip O'Neal (speaker of the house at the time) and we increased all manor of social spending.

You are right, Regan increased the debt due to spending, not due to government receipts (I don't call taxes revenue for the gubmint).

Tax cuts will grow the economy every time. BUT spending increased as well.

If you personally double your salary but quadruple your spending you're still in trouble. That in a nut shell is what DC has been doing for a long time.

Way to long!! We are stuck with this shit, and my son too.... getting sick of it fast..... Both sides blaming the other, when they are both doing it!

Aloha_Shooter

11-08-2012, 23:26

Thanks for the explanation guys; since many conservatives won't admit it, i thought I would ask.

So then this graph is correct: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

No, that graph is a load of crap. Reagan DID sacrifice his desired fiscal conservatism to get Tip O'Neill and company to support his fight against Communism but it was the Democrat program expansion that seriously increased the deficit. Reagan's tax RATE reductions actually increased tax revenues but Congress (which declared Reagan's proposed budget DOA every year) spent $1.86 (IIRC) for every additional dollar of tax revenue brought in.

There is no way the deficit as a %GDP would have dropped to zero in continuing the Democrat programs. Clinton's fabled surplus was nothing of the kind -- he and Newt conspired to call it that but they practiced Enron-style accounting by "borrowing" from the "Social Security Trust Fund" and counting that as income while never recording the future debt of paying back that "IOU". On the bright side, while it was nothing but a myth, they DID reduce how fast the deficit was growing.

That chart also blames Bush the Younger for the vast increase in spending pushed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid after the 2006 elections when they took control of both houses of Congress. GWB unfortunately had the same lesson Reagan did: they had to accept Dem spending increases to avoid what they thought would be greater evils. Personally, I wish both had pulled a Clinton and shut down the government until Congress gave them responsible authorization and spending bills.

spqrzilla

11-09-2012, 05:35

Reagan left with 3 trillion in the hole
Bush Jr came in +3 trillion surplus, and left around 8-10 trillion in the hole depending on who you ask.
In fact if it wasn't for George Sr. tax hike (which got him voted out) we would be in a lot bigger trouble.
All Clinton did was ride the surplus created by GHWB.
The original graph is false as Snopes reveals in its usual partisan way. There was no 3 trillion surplus when G.W. Bush came to office. That's ridiculous. In fact, there was no surplus at all when he entered office as Clinton's last budget FY 2000 was not projected to be in surplus.

spqrzilla

11-09-2012, 05:38

Thanks for the explanation guys; since many conservatives won't admit it, i thought I would ask.

So then this graph is correct: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
No, that graph is false. Just as one example, it blamed FY 09 on G.W. Bush when Congress did not pass the FY 09 budget until four months late, for Obama to sign after inauguration in Jan 09 and then Obama subsequently added hundreds of billions to its deficit with his faux "stimulus" bill.

That graph is a fraud.

mevshooter

11-09-2012, 09:47

Sweet mercy, there was no surplus when G. Ddub junior came into office his first term. The number Clinton and the Dem's were spouting to the public were "projected numbers" that everyone took as fact. Once Dubya was in there was no surplus at all, and the debt started accumulating due to the major funding we NEEDED for our Military... and yes, stupid pork barrel spending as well. Did everyone forget that little piece of awesome? The over 1/3rd our military shrunk by? The credit card bubble that was created during the 90's when EVERYONE was allowed to get an insane credit limit, even if you didn't have a dollar to your name?

I know both parties are to blame for their own crap, but goodness, quit talking about this imaginary surplus that never existed in the first place.

Delfuego

11-09-2012, 10:17

Budget surplus, not debt surplus.

Reagan DID sacrifice his desired fiscal conservatism to get Tip O'Neill and company to support his fight against Communism but it was the Democrat program expansion that seriously increased the deficit.Sure its all Tip O'Neill's fault... Quit looking at the world with rose colored lenses. Reagan was not the conservative saint he is portrayed as today. In fact if he was alive now, he would be branded as California left-winger by many people here.

CrufflerSteve

11-09-2012, 10:18

Delfuego

11-09-2012, 10:33

In 2009 they were officially were accounted for.

14823

spqrzilla

11-09-2012, 10:58

I have a question about the calculations during President Shrub and the Bummer. When we started our imperial wars I understand they were not in the budget. They were emergency that came off budget to make the picture look better. It's a loathsome way of accounting and I believe Bummer followed Bush the Lesser's methods. Does this turn up in these figures?

Steve
This is based on misrepresentations made by the Democrats. The Iraq and Afghanistan operations were not included in the budget but rather funded by supplemental appropriations. Their costs were included in the deficit figures. By not including the operations in the budget, their costs were not considered "baseline" spending. And so not baked into the future Federal budget projections that are run out to 10 years. But the costs were not hidden in any way. They were always "accounted for".

When Obama heralded putting the operations into the budget, that just meant that when those operations ended as intended, that he'd claim that the disappearance of the spending was a "budget reduction". Which it plainly wasn't.

Note that since the Democrats have failed to actually pass a budget since FY 2009, as an intentional political strategem, they have not had to produce a document with that 10 year projection at all. And avoiding the responsibility of the required statutory 10 year budgeting provisions of Federal law is the purpose of not passing a budget. Pretending that including the war operations in the base budget was a virtue and then not producing a budget really puts paid to the fiction of Democrats being more fiscal responsible.

Delfuego

11-09-2012, 11:45

Yeh.. everything is someone else's fault. Nobody ever seems to take responsibility in this country.

spqrzilla

11-09-2012, 11:57

Yeh.. everything is someone else's fault. Nobody ever seems to take responsibility in this country.

How do you dispute that the Democrats have passed no budgets, not even voting for their President's, as an assertion of "someone else's fault" ? Its a fact that the Democrats in both houses intentionally failed to pass a budget during the 2010 election cycle and its a fact that since the House has been controlled by the GOP that the House has passed budgets that the Senate - controlled by Democrats - won't pass even in amended form.

This failure to meet their most basic constitutional and statutory duty - that of adopting a budget - is simply a fact.

nynco

11-09-2012, 16:49

low drag

11-09-2012, 20:22

Way to long!! We are stuck with this shit, and my son too.... getting sick of it fast..... Both sides blaming the other, when they are both doing it!
What do you mean way too long?

spqrzilla

11-09-2012, 21:06

At no other time in US history have we cut taxes and gone to war. It was and is being proven today to be pure insanity. You all want to fix the debt and avoid a dollar melt down. Go back to the tax structures from Roosevelt till Reagan. Our economy was booming back then. The middle class was receiving pay increases that mirror the increases in productivity. After Reagan we went into astronomical debt and today it takes two income earners to earn what my father did in purchasing power in 1979. Reagan was the beginning of the end for the middle class. Time to learn from that mistake and move forward.

This makes no sense at all. You've associated things that are simply not associated and filled your comment with non sequiturs. Our economy has boomed since the Reagan era tax reforms as well. There were tax reforms in the JFK administration too.

If you've a specific tax proposal make it, but your vague belief that there was something special about pre-Reagan tax structure is nonsensical. Tax rates were higher, but applied to less income. Do you have any idea what the practical differences were?

Tax foundation refutes your claims rather handily.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/comparing-kennedy-reagan-and-bush-tax-cuts

nynco

11-09-2012, 21:11

No the economy boomed for one section of the US population. For the rest of us today it takes two wage earners to have the same purchasing power as one in 1979. I don't measure a boom by how the richest do. I look at the total picture, which the total pictures shows that the vast majority of the population did not feel the boom since Reagan one bit. Other than a boom as in broke.

Also At no other time in US history have we cut taxes and gone to war

That is a fact

spqrzilla

11-09-2012, 21:14

Again, nynco, your claims are simply false. This class warfare rhetoric remains nonsense.

The reality was that after the George W. Bush tax rate cuts, the "rich" were paying a larger share of income tax than the lower income quintiles. Those tax rate changes actually increased their share of tax revenues.

nynco

11-09-2012, 21:18

I did not argue that but I could. So don't put words in my mouth. Also the class warfare thing, well that is your words. The facts are the facts, since 1980 wages for the vast majority of the population wages have not kept up with gains in productivity or cost of living. If that is class warfare well then they 1% won over 3 decades ago. No amount of crying that the other side is waging class war fare will change the facts.

spqrzilla

11-09-2012, 21:28

nynco

11-09-2012, 21:58

dwalker460

11-10-2012, 01:29

Pre-WW2 and immediately after the typical American Family did not use credit, nor did they have 2 cars, a TV in every room of the house, etc. We lived within our means, as the saying goes. If you did not work, you did not eat. Welfare was provided for by the Church, and healthcare was provided for the needy by the charity of the doctors.

What changed?

We became a credit based economy
Charity from doctors and other organizations went away when they figured out they would be sued for their kindness at any moment
Our propganda machine has convinced every single American that at 16 you are owed a newer model car, that children do not need to work in addition to study, and that its OK to be in debt.
Our welfare programs are no longer locally based, but a huge government entity that is played like a fine instrument by the dregs of our society.

It is a sincere mis-step to blame this on the politicians, when it is society itself that propagates this mentality.

Want to restore our economic might? Try family values and the idea that discipline is a cornerstone of society, and that includes the teaching of children to not be a waste of humanity. Stop blaming political parties and start looking around and blaming your neighbor who collects foodstamps and a disability check while riding around in a new Escalade. Become involved in your local community without expecting anything from it. Chastise, and I literally mean embarass the hell out of those who prey upon the system and when a Liberal whackjob is appalled that you spoke the truth, embarass them for being so weak minded as to think that giving people what they want is the answer, and that if it hurts your feelings to be called a name, or to be told to go get a job, well then perhaps you are better off living in the woods away from the rest of us.

But its time to stop this bullshit of claiming the two parties are the same. Conservatism and being a Republican are not the same as being a Liberal, and it is simply beyond stupid the way some of you attempt to justify blaming both parties. Do you understand how politics work? Because I get a sincere feeling that few of the third partiers and malcontents that comment in these threads have any idea of anything except to complain and spew out canned arguments. Having dealt with professional organizations, clubs, etc. for most of my life I have more knowledge than I ever wanted about politics and how one gets things done, so it is second nature to me to look into the heart of an issue and see the truth behind it before placing blame.

low drag

11-10-2012, 07:01

This makes no sense at all. You've associated things that are simply not associated and filled your comment with non sequiturs. Our economy has boomed since the Reagan era tax reforms as well. There were tax reforms in the JFK administration too.

If you've a specific tax proposal make it, but your vague belief that there was something special about pre-Reagan tax structure is nonsensical. Tax rates were higher, but applied to less income. Do you have any idea what the practical differences were?

Tax foundation refutes your claims rather handily.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/comparing-kennedy-reagan-and-bush-tax-cuts

People always make the mistake of mixing up receipts to the US Treasury with outputs spent by congress. I understand what you're saying, those on the left that haven't gotten it yet won't.

Byte Stryke

11-10-2012, 09:40

when we get done celebrating diversity and being whatever-Americans, pool together and just become Americans, when we stop fighting and bickering among ourselves, we can get out of this.
Until then we will continue to tear this country apart.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." -Abraham Lincoln

Pancho Villa

11-10-2012, 09:43

It was a lot.

Oh, sorry...the other guys spent a lot too! Sometimes more!

Have to tow the party line.

dwalker460

11-10-2012, 10:04

It was a lot.

Oh, sorry...the other guys spent a lot too! Sometimes more!

Have to TOE the party line.

FIFY-

Also, I get that you think its cool to be some sort of radical, but the reality is that in reading your posts, I, and I believe most others, come to the conclusion your simply full of crap. You chastise a guy for investing in stocks, but have nothing to back up your criticism. You criticize the political parties, yet offer up no reasonable solutions or alternatives. Maybe its time you woke up and faced the reality of the situation, and started to act like a responsible human being and offer solutions and solid input instead of snide comments and regurgitated drivel.

spqrzilla

11-10-2012, 10:05

Honestly, I don't trust that chart because the inflation index has been messed with to hide the buying power loss to the general public. The most glaring example is the cost of a house today in relation to average income. That number today is far worse than it was in 1979.

The cost of a house today - even after the bubble collapsed - is "higher" because people expect to live in larger houses with more amenities. And to do so with smaller household sizes. You are the one that are comparing gilded apples to skinny oranges and don't realize it.

Also here is a chart to the metric I was talking about. You will see that wages kept up with productivity increases all the way till Reagan... then wages stagnated.
http://www.zompist.com/lib2.jpg

And then you give us a chart that is inflation indexed itself. And has absolutely nothing to do with living standards or anything. It only compared GDP growth per capita to median income. It does nothing to establish your points but is a non sequitur as I pointed out earlier.

dwalker460

11-10-2012, 10:15

The cost of a house today - even after the bubble collapsed - is "higher" because people expect to live in larger houses with more amenities. And to do so with smaller household sizes. You are the one that are comparing gilded apples to skinny oranges and don't realize it.

This- and lets not forget that houses are built to be much more energy efficient, almost all newer houses have central HVAC, built-in cable/satellite, multi-pane windows... the list goes on. Not sure how old you are but I have lived in old houses where the floor was bowed and slanted due to settling, with no insulation to speak of and single-pane windows. I remember vividly only having heat in specific rooms of the house because it was too expensive to heat them all, and literally closing off some rooms during the winter to conserve heat. I remeber never wanting to be inside any more than necessary because the house had no ac, and hanging clothes on a clothes line to save a little on the utility bill, and a lot of other things that would send current folks over the edge. When I was growing up we had ONE TV for the entire house, and my parents dictated when and what we watched on it.

We are a land of privileged people who believe that they are entitled to whatever they want, whether they earned it or not.

nynco

11-10-2012, 11:42

This- and lets not forget that houses are built to be much more energy efficient, almost all newer houses have central HVAC, built-in cable/satellite, multi-pane windows... the list goes on. Not sure how old you are but I have lived in old houses where the floor was bowed and slanted due to settling, with no insulation to speak of and single-pane windows. I remember vividly only having heat in specific rooms of the house because it was too expensive to heat them all, and literally closing off some rooms during the winter to conserve heat. I remeber never wanting to be inside any more than necessary because the house had no ac, and hanging clothes on a clothes line to save a little on the utility bill, and a lot of other things that would send current folks over the edge. When I was growing up we had ONE TV for the entire house, and my parents dictated when and what we watched on it.

We are a land of privileged people who believe that they are entitled to whatever they want, whether they earned it or not.

SO WHAT... this still does not address the point I made. The average cost of a house today is significantly MORE today when compared to the average wages earned. Thats a fact jack. You accuse me of nonsequinter and then charge right into your own head on. Project much? Even then all those things you cite are next to meaningless. I could outfit my whole house with TVs for 1/10th the cost in relation to wages of the one TV you grew up on. Thats because technology drops in price. Heck drive around cap hill for a few hours and I could do it for free. The cost of those building supplies back then was just as much. They were just old tech compared to the stuff now.

You old guys are just out of touch and blame everyone for not having to walk uphill both ways to school. I got news for you -todays generation is worse off because of you selfish people before them. The me generation that wanted everything now, well they elected people who gave you tax breaks and put the bill on a credit card.

spqrzilla

11-10-2012, 11:59

SO WHAT... this still does not address the point I made. The average cost of a house today is significantly MORE today when compared to the average wages earned. Thats a fact jack. You accuse me of nonsequinter and then charge right into your own head on. Project much? Even then all those things you cite are next to meaningless. I could outfit my whole house with TVs for 1/10th the cost in relation to wages of the one TV you grew up on. Thats because technology drops in price. Heck drive around cap hill for a few hours and I could do it for free. The cost of those building supplies back then was just as much. They were just old tech compared to the stuff now.

You old guys are just out of touch and blame everyone for not having to walk uphill both ways to school. I got news for you -todays generation is worse off because of you selfish people before them. The me generation that wanted everything now, well they elected people who gave you tax breaks and put the bill on a credit card.

Utter nonsense. First of all, his comment directly addressed your point. You just don't understand it. You compare the cost of housing but don't realize that your comparison fails because you are not comparing equivalents. When its pointed out to you, you don't even pay attention.

Second, today's generation is not worse off in terms of living standards. Today's generation expects to enjoy things that previous generations could not afford to have if they even existed. When I was growing up, no one had cell phones. Only the elite had mobile phones, which were fixed installations in cars. If you wanted to call someone while away from home or office, you used pay phones. Today's generation probably never even uses pay phones if they could even find them.

The point about housing was specifically that you compare the amount of income spent on housing but you fail to compare how that housing is larger, has more amenities, and often has smaller households in it. Young people today think that they are entitled to separate housing at earlier ages. The distribution of home ownership expanded greatly during the housing bubble. There are equivalents at all levels. Personal music players to cars that last longer and need less service to theater quality home video.

But this all goes over your head.

nynco

11-10-2012, 12:06

spqrzilla

11-10-2012, 12:11

Your paragraph rather well demonstrated who is not understanding the basics. In it, you wrote at the beginning "There is no equivalent to having a house full of TVs today and only one when you were a kid." and later you wrote "... wages that have half the purchasing power ..." and you don't understand how you are contradicting yourself.

When you isolate out the true basics - food, energy and basic shelter - those differences in purchasing power disappear and in fact invert.

(Although its tough to even compare food well, since in recent decades we enjoy food variety unseen in the past generations as we get fruits and vegetables year round from global trade. Older cookbooks had to account for what foods were "in season". Today, no one even thinks about it.)

nynco

11-10-2012, 12:20

Who give a shit about a TV. The cost of life now requires two incomes to earn the same purchasing power as was the norm in 1979. I went on to list examples and still still target fixate on a TV. Fuck I don't even own one and most of the people my age don't either.

"When you isolate out the true basics - food, energy and basic shelter - those differences in purchasing power disappear and in fact invert."

What world do you live in? Because the cost of gas alone is way more. Heck I just told you that the average cost of a house is 3 times more than the average wages of that time. Yet you still cling to that false reality.

spqrzilla

11-10-2012, 12:30

What world do you live in? Because the cost of gas alone is way more. Heck I just told you that the average cost of a house is 3 times more than the average wages of that time. Yet you still cling to that false reality.
And you still don't understand how your little factoid is meaningless despite several attempts to explain it to you. The small three bedroom one bath house, with no A/C, and a tiny kitchen that my mother grew up in did not increase in price three times more than wages over the last half century. The false reality here is yours.

dwalker460

11-10-2012, 12:33

I can buy a TV right now for 10 dollars on craigs list used. In fact I can pick them up free all day long. There is no equivalent to having a house full of TVs today and only one when you were a kid. Heck I gave 3 away in the last year myself. So yeah I can afford to enjoy what you did not have or barely had. That is how the world works. Cost of those "luxories" went down. What todays generation enjoys that you did not is the debt you left, the college school system that has risen over 800% more in cost than inflation, A system that forces them to take loans that can NEVER BE BANKRUPTED OUT OF... which basically is the modern form of share cropping, wages that have half the purchasing power and houses that cost 3 times as much..... whooo hoooo its all about a TV though.

If it is going over any ones head it is right over yours.

You are literally the most ignorant person I have had the pleasure of addressing in recent memory.

My college tuition in 1990 was $600 for 15 credit hours, which was full time back then. My tuition rose steadly because of the mandatory programs the school had to offer, NOT because new buildings were built, or professors got pay increases, or higher percentages of new equipment was bought. However because the college had to offer a lot of "free" programs for "disadvantaged" students, tuition rose. And its going to keep rising because while the tuition for those who can pay goes up, it does so to pay for those who cannot pay. Not everyone goes to college, nor should they.

The TV thing is an example of the gluttony of those who cannot afford it. As a specific example-

I had an employee a couple of years ago who made part time pay, and worked part time hours. I paid him one Friday and the following Monday and Tuesday he did not show up for work. I asked him on Wednesday why. He told me he did not have the money for gas for his car. Huh.... So I responded that I had just paid him on Friday, what happened? He replied he has bills to pay.. cell phone, X-box or whatever game accounts, his car insurance, etc. and just didnt have anything left. I was shocked, and asked how does a 19yr old kid living at home have so many bills he cant afford to put gas in his car to get to work? We all have bills I told him, but we plan ahead so that we can get to work, and even if it works out we have no gas money, we get a friend or family member to help us out. I let him go about a week later. I spoke with his dad a few weeks after and he had no idea of this, and flat told me that he would have given his son the money to get to work, and had no idea his son was squandering every dime he made.

Its a sign of the times. The average American has no savings, has more debt than thier yearly income, and is less than two months of unemployment from insolvency. We need to fix that, and it starts by teaching responsibility, not the BS theories of those who have never worked for a living.

Sharpienads

11-10-2012, 12:37

dwalker, If you had been here a bit longer you would know that trying to argue with nynco is useless. He was here before, took about a year or so off, and is now back. But have fun. [Luck]

Pancho Villa

11-10-2012, 12:39

In this thread, we blame capitalism for the government-backed policy of inflation that steals purchasing power / savings from our citizens.

The irony is so delicious, I skipped breakfast to have some more.

nynco

11-10-2012, 12:41

1960
Median household income: $5,620
Median home price: $11,900
Home price / income = 211 percent
Today

average median income today $50,964
average cost of a house - $244,792
Home price / income = 480 percent

You were saying? Oh yeah... it's all about a TV

http://i.usatoday.net/news/graphics/housing_prices/home_prices.pdf

nynco

11-10-2012, 12:43

The real irony is that libertarian economic models always lead to business buying gov and gov reinforcing those same things that you think libertarian/conservative economics will fix.

dwalker460

11-10-2012, 12:47

thanks for making my point. The 2 bedroom one bath home is no longer the average, what we have now is the McMansion, at least three bedrooms 2.5 bath with garage, HVAC, etc.

I can buy such a house TODAY for 60K in Colorado, and LESS in other areas, soooo that kinda shoots yourself right in the ass....

Pancho Villa

11-10-2012, 12:48

nynco

11-10-2012, 12:49

Its happening today and has been for a long time. We deregulated the financial serves industry and then at the same time said money was free speech... so they bought our elected officials elections.

Hows the coffee smell?

nynco

11-10-2012, 12:51

Oh please point to where I can buy a house in the Denver metro area for 60K that is not falling down. Go....

dwalker460

11-10-2012, 12:55

zillow.com dont sprain anything

here-
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3699-Teller-St-Wheat-Ridge-CO-80033/13738942_zpid/

Pancho Villa

11-10-2012, 13:00

Sharpienads

11-10-2012, 13:03

Yup, that's exactly what happened! There's no alternate explanation at all!

lol

nynco

11-10-2012, 13:07

zillow.com dont sprain anything

here-
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3699-Teller-St-Wheat-Ridge-CO-80033/13738942_zpid/

Jesus you just linked to a house that forclosed on a previous value of 250k. You just proved my point for me.

nynco

11-10-2012, 13:09

Yup, that's exactly what happened! There's no alternate explanation at all!

So whats your explanation and use facts not Ayne Rands theories but actual facts.

spqrzilla

11-10-2012, 13:11

The real irony is that libertarian economic models always lead to business buying gov and gov reinforcing those same things that you think libertarian/conservative economics will fix.

Of a great many objectively false things you've written, this is the most ridiculous one. A libertarian economic model would not allow the government to have the control that would make "buying" it worthwhile.

You really are showing your utter ignorance here, nynco. Do you really have no clue what libertarian philosophy is? Or do you just write down random nonsense?

Pancho Villa

11-10-2012, 13:14

So whats your explanation and use facts not Ayne Rands theories but actual facts.

Sorry, man. I'm totally open to talk turkey with most guys here, because I fundamentally feel that they're open to different points of view, or facts that don't jive with their worldview. But it would be a waste of time with you.

nynco

11-10-2012, 13:16

nynco

11-10-2012, 13:19

Gross federal debt

This table lists the gross U.S. federal debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt)[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt#cite_note-47) as a percentage of GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_Domestic_Product) by number Congress since World War II.[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt#cite_note-wh2007-48) The current gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP (83.4% at the end of 2009) is currently the highest it has been since the late 1940s. The debt briefly reached over 100% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#History) of GDP in the aftermath of World War II.

Table 7.1—FEDERAL DEBT AT THE END OF YEAR: 1940–2016

End of Fiscal Year
In Millions of Dollars
As Percentages of GDP

Gross Federal Debt
Less: Held by Federal Government Accounts
Equals: Held by the Public
Gross Federal Debt
Less: Held by Federal Government Accounts
Equals: Held by the Public

Total
Federal Reserve System
Other
Total
Federal Reserve System
Other

1940
50,696
7,924
42,772
2,458
40,314
52.4
8.2
44.2
2.5
41.6

1941
57,531
9,308
48,223
2,180
46,043
50.4
8.2
42.3
1.9
40.4

1942
79,200
11,447
67,753
2,640
65,113
54.9
7.9
47.0
1.8
45.1

1943
142,648
14,882
127,766
7,149
120,617
79.1
8.3
70.9
4.0
66.9

1944
204,079
19,283
184,796
14,899
169,897
97.6
9.2
88.3
7.1
81.2

1945
260,123
24,941
235,182
21,792
213,390
117.5
11.3
106.2
9.8
96.4

1946
270,991
29,130
241,861
23,783
218,078
121.7
13.1
108.7
10.7
98.0

1947
257,149
32,810
224,339
21,872
202,467
110.3
14.1
96.2
9.4
86.8

1948
252,031
35,761
216,270
21,366
194,904
98.2
13.9
84.3
8.3
76.0

1949
252,610
38,288
214,322
19,343
194,979
93.1
14.1
79.0
7.1
71.9

1950
256,853
37,830
219,023
18,331
200,692
94.1
13.9
80.2
6.7
73.5

1951
255,288
40,962
214,326
22,982
191,344
79.7
12.8
66.9
7.2
59.8

1952
259,097
44,339
214,758
22,906
191,852
74.3
12.7
61.6
6.6
55.0

1953
265,963
47,580
218,383
24,746
193,637
71.4
12.8
58.6
6.6
52.0

1954
270,812
46,313
224,499
25,037
199,462
71.8
12.3
59.5
6.6
52.9

1955
274,366
47,751
226,616
23,607
203,009
69.3
12.1
57.2
6.0
51.3

1956
272,693
50,537
222,156
23,758
198,398
63.9
11.8
52.0
5.6
46.5

1957
272,252
52,931
219,320
23,035
196,285
60.4
11.7
48.6
5.1
43.5

1958
279,666
53,329
226,336
25,438
200,898
60.8
11.6
49.2
5.5
43.7

1959
287,465
52,764
234,701
26,044
208,657
58.6
10.8
47.9
5.3
42.6

1960
290,525
53,686
236,840
26,523
210,317
56.0
10.3
45.6
5.1
40.5

1961
292,648
54,291
238,357
27,253
211,104
55.2
10.2
45.0
5.1
39.8

1962
302,928
54,918
248,010
29,663
218,347
53.4
9.7
43.7
5.2
38.5

1963
310,324
56,345
253,978
32,027
221,951
51.8
9.4
42.4
5.3
37.0

1964
316,059
59,210
256,849
34,794
222,055
49.3
9.2
40.0
5.4
34.6

1965
322,318
61,540
260,778
39,100
221,678
46.9
9.0
37.9
5.7
32.2

1966
328,498
64,784
263,714
42,169
221,545
43.5
8.6
34.9
5.6
29.3

1967
340,445
73,819
266,626
46,719
219,907
42.0
9.1
32.9
5.8
27.1

1968
368,685
79,140
289,545
52,230
237,315
42.5
9.1
33.3
6.0
27.3

1969
365,769
87,661
278,108
54,095
224,013
38.6
9.2
29.3
5.7
23.6

1970
380,921
97,723
283,198
57,714
225,484
37.6
9.6
28.0
5.7
22.3

1971
408,176
105,140
303,037
65,518
237,519
37.8
9.7
28.1
6.1
22.0

1972
435,936
113,559
322,377
71,426
250,951
37.1
9.7
27.4
6.1
21.3

1973
466,291
125,381
340,910
75,181
265,729
35.6
9.6
26.0
5.7
20.3

1974
483,893
140,194
343,699
80,648
263,051
33.6
9.7
23.9
5.6
18.3

1975
541,925
147,225
394,700
84,993
309,707
34.7
9.4
25.3
5.4
19.9

1976
628,970
151,566
477,404
94,714
382,690
36.2
8.7
27.5
5.4
22.0

TQ
643,561
148,052
495,509
96,702
398,807
35.0
8.1
27.0
5.3
21.7

1977
706,398
157,294
549,104
105,004
444,100
35.8
8.0
27.8
5.3
22.5

1978
776,602
169,476
607,126
115,480
491,646
35.0
7.6
27.4
5.2
22.2

1979
829,467
189,161
640,306
115,594
524,712
33.2
7.6
25.6
4.6
21.0

1980
909,041
197,118
711,923
120,846
591,077
33.4
7.2
26.1
4.4
21.7

1981
994,828
205,418
789,410
124,466
664,944
32.5
6.7
25.8
4.1
21.8

1982
1,137,315
212,740
924,575
134,497
790,078
35.3
6.6
28.7
4.2
24.5

1983
1,371,660
234,392
1,137,268
155,527
981,741
39.9
6.8
33.1
4.5
28.5

1984
1,564,586
257,611
1,306,975
155,122
1,151,853
40.7
6.7
34.0
4.0
30.0

1985
1,817,423
310,163
1,507,260
169,806
1,337,454
43.8
7.5
36.4
4.1
32.3

1986
2,120,501
379,878
1,740,623
190,855
1,549,767
48.2
8.6
39.5
4.3
35.2

1987
2,345,956
456,203
1,889,753
212,040
1,677,713
50.4
9.8
40.6
4.6
36.1

1988
2,601,104
549,487
2,051,616
229,218
1,822,398
51.9
11.0
41.0
4.6
36.4

1989
2,867,800
677,084
2,190,716
220,088
1,970,628
53.1
12.5
40.6
4.1
36.5

1990
3,206,290
794,733
2,411,558
234,410
2,177,147
55.9
13.9
42.1
4.1
38.0

1991
3,598,178
909,179
2,688,999
258,591
2,430,408
60.7
15.3
45.3
4.4
41.0

1992
4,001,787
1,002,050
2,999,737
296,397
2,703,341
64.1
16.1
48.1
4.7
43.3

1993
4,351,044
1,102,647
3,248,396
325,653
2,922,744
66.1
16.7
49.3
4.9
44.4

1994
4,643,307
1,210,242
3,433,065
355,150
3,077,915
66.6
17.3
49.2
5.1
44.1

1995
4,920,586
1,316,208
3,604,378
374,114
3,230,264
67.0
17.9
49.1
5.1
44.0

1996
5,181,465
1,447,392
3,734,073
390,924
3,343,149
67.1
18.8
48.4
5.1
43.3

1997
5,369,206
1,596,862
3,772,344
424,518
3,347,826
65.4
19.4
45.9
5.2
40.8

1998
5,478,189
1,757,090
3,721,099
458,182
3,262,917
63.2
20.3
43.0
5.3
37.7

1999
5,605,523
1,973,160
3,632,363
496,644
3,135,719
60.9
21.4
39.4
5.4
34.1

2000
5,628,700
2,218,896
3,409,804
511,413
2,898,391
57.3
22.6
34.7
5.2
29.5

2001
5,769,881
2,450,266
3,319,615
534,135
2,785,480
56.4
24.0
32.5
5.2
27.2

2002
6,198,401
2,657,974
3,540,427
604,191
2,936,235
58.8
25.2
33.6
5.7
27.8

2003
6,760,014
2,846,570
3,913,443
656,116
3,257,327
61.6
25.9
35.6
6.0
29.7

2004
7,354,657
3,059,113
4,295,544
700,341
3,595,203
62.9
26.2
36.8
6.0
30.8

2005
7,905,300
3,313,088
4,592,212
736,360
3,855,852
63.5
26.6
36.9
5.9
31.0

2006
8,451,350
3,622,378
4,828,972
768,924
4,060,048
63.9
27.4
36.5
5.8
30.7

2007
8,950,744
3,915,615
5,035,129
779,632
4,255,497
64.4
28.2
36.2
5.6
30.6

2008
9,986,082
4,183,032
5,803,050
491,127
5,311,923
69.4
29.1
40.3
3.4
36.9

2009
11,875,851
4,331,144
7,544,707
769,160
6,775,547
84.2
30.7
53.5
5.5
48.1

2010
13,528,807
4,509,867
9,018,941
811,669
8,207,272
93.2
31.1
62.2
5.6
56.6

2011 estimate
15,476,243
4,619,793
10,856,450
N/A
N/A
102.6
30.6
72.0
N/A
N/A

2012 estimate
16,654,260
4,773,123
11,881,136
N/A
N/A
105.3
30.2
75.1
N/A
N/A

2013 estimate
17,750,484
4,966,516
12,783,968
N/A
N/A
106.0
29.6
76.3
N/A
N/A

2014 estimate
18,761,182
5,199,011
13,562,171
N/A
N/A
105.5
29.2
76.3
N/A
N/A

2015 estimate
19,775,536
5,474,455
14,301,081
N/A
N/A
105.2
29.1
76.1
N/A
N/A

2016 estimate
20,824,996
5,761,088
15,063,908
N/A
N/A
105.2
29.1
76.1
N/A
N/A

N/A: Not available.

(Source: CBO Historical Budget Page (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11766) and Whitehouse FY 2012 Budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/) - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year PDF (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11766/2010_08_05_FederalDebt.pdf), Excel (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist07z1.xls), Senate.gov (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm))
Notes:

For net jobs changes over the corresponding periods, see: Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms).

If you want to look at another break down of some of those statistics check out this forbse article. You GOP true believers... hold your heart before it gives out.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/

TDYRanger

11-10-2012, 13:27

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt

If you scroll down the historical debt levels it gives you a good idea of the debt increases since just after the civil war. The debt to GDP ratio is pretty telling

spqrzilla

11-10-2012, 13:48

So in your libertarian deregulation model... what laws are there to stop wealth and corportations in particular from BUYING our elected officials if your same model says that money is free speech and corporations have the same rights as living citizens and you can give as much money as you want to an elected official? Nothing.... and that thing always leads to the corruption that you are crying about.

You want to read up on a good essay that debunks most of the libertarian garbage have at it.
http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

You don't even know what libertarian philosphy is, but you are content to use it as an epithet. In a libertarian economic model, there is little danger of "buying" an elected official because the libertarians don't give the government the power to do anything.

Your opinions seem firmly grounded upon your ignorance.

nynco

11-10-2012, 13:53

Pancho Villa

11-10-2012, 14:12

Ah so in your model the gov has no ability to do anything. Like regulate those things I was talking about to keep them from bribing and buying our gov. Thanks for proving my point for me. You just invalidated your own argument even if you don't understand how.

Ahh, actually, you proved my point for me. You just invalidated your own argument, even if you don't understand how.

I'm going to be smug and bask in my victory.

nynco

11-10-2012, 14:24

Go on explain yourself rather than doing a kid dance based on your opinion. The only thing you said was "I know you are but what am I" hardly a winning argument.

spqrzilla

11-10-2012, 15:36

Ah so in your model the gov has no ability to do anything. Like regulate those things I was talking about to keep them from bribing and buying our gov. Thanks for proving my point for me. You just invalidated your own argument even if you don't understand how.

Another comment where you show your ignorance.

First, I'm not a libertarian. Its not "my" model. My comments were illustrating how you are making comments about libertarian economic models that bear absolutely no relationship to actual libertarian philosophy. None. Your "refutations" of the libertarian model are to make up nonsense about what it states, and then triumphantly proclaim how wrong your fabrications are.

It would seem obvious that if government was not allowed to act outside of a small sphere, it would be meaningless to "bribe" its officials for results outside that sphere. (Meanwhile increased regulations in the real world are increasing the influence of big corporations and increasing the amount of crony capitalism).

So your belief that my comments - which you can't seem to understand at all - prove your point is just so absolutely ridiculous that I wonder how it is that you can be so confused about basics.

nynco

11-10-2012, 15:44

Even when gov was much smaller back in the 1800s corruption was a big problem. Its laughable to think that if you shrank gov small enough that corruption mean nothing. That is historically false.

Now if we had regulations that made it so that people could not buy or bribe our gov and punishments that put people in jail for a long time who did so, that might go a long way in fixing this mess. But as I said you and admitted, you do want regulations.

So about who is being ridiculous now?

Pancho Villa

11-10-2012, 16:17

No regulations + strong tort law solves most problems without the dead weight of giant regulatory agencies.

nynco

11-10-2012, 16:18

What? what do you think tort law is?

roberth

11-10-2012, 18:28

No regulations + strong tort law solves most problems without the dead weight of giant regulatory agencies.

I like that idea. Government will do its job in the court of law, not in an office with some bozo shitstain from the EPA.

nynco

11-10-2012, 18:30

spqrzilla

11-10-2012, 18:33

Even when gov was much smaller back in the 1800s corruption was a big problem. Its laughable to think that if you shrank gov small enough that corruption mean nothing. That is historically false.

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about. Your ignorance of libertarian philosophy is so immense that it hurts. There can only be corruption where government acts.

Now if we had regulations that made it so that people could not buy or bribe our gov and punishments that put people in jail for a long time who did so, that might go a long way in fixing this mess. But as I said you and admitted, you do want regulations.

You think bribery is legal? You think its not already against the law? Where do you come from? Next, you are going to tell us that we have so much murder because there is no law against it.
Your bizarre view of the world is beyond parody.

So about who is being ridiculous now?You.

spqrzilla

11-10-2012, 18:36

So why do you guys favor tort reform for medical malpractice? Why did you guys cry bloody murder when the lady who burned herself with Mc Donalds coffee sued and won a major settlement? There is a lot of inconsistency here. You can't have it both ways.
You just keep making comments like this that show you are utterly uninformed about other people's arguments (and frankly uninformed of most of the arguments you've adopted). Tort reform should have been part of the over-regulation of the health care industry that is going on. That the industry is becoming overregulated and virtually socialized, that there is not also tort reform only makes the financial crisis that is resulting from the failed Obamacare worse.

nynco

11-10-2012, 18:37

"There can only be corruption where government acts."

Are you high... no really serious question - are you high or mental? Because that is just lunacy.

"You think bribery is legal?"

What do you think happens when a mega donor showers a politician with mass amounts of cash for his election? Nothing?

nynco

11-10-2012, 18:43

Tort reform should have been part of the over-regulation of the health care industry that is going on.

Again you guys don't seem to get the obvious. If you take away peoples rights to sue in your "tort reform" there is no system that is functional in the tort cases that will ever stop a company from doing as they please. They will crunch the numbers of how many people they will kill, who will sue (and only ever get 250K in damages) and if that number is lower than the cost.... well guess what twinkle toes.... they'll just keep on killin because it costs them less.

The only thing that stopped Mc Donalds from serving insanely hot coffee was the economic damages. There were hundreds of cases before that where Mc Donalds was found to be at fault for that same issue. But they were never fined anything that caused them to give a shit. That is why the jury awarded so much to that old lady because her lawyer pointed that out and the JURY OF YOUR PEERS decided to send a message one of financial burden to Mc Donalds.

You think that taking away peoples rights to sue will somehow strengthen the Tort system and prevent fraud.... and at the same time end gov regulation will do good.

Are you high?

spqrzilla

11-10-2012, 18:51

Do you keep asking if I'm high because you are?

You are the one that seems to think that bribery is legal ... and only happens because of the lack of a law against it.

nynco

11-10-2012, 18:52

What do you think happens when a politician takes a million dollars from a donor? Nothing?

Sorry don't do drugs. I have no use for them. I barely even drink.

spqrzilla

11-10-2012, 20:07

In the interests of ignoring the troll, I'll return to something I mentioned earlier.

The Federal Reserve is currently pumping huge amounts of funny money into the system. To the extent that close to two-thirds of all Federal bonds sold recently have been bought by the Federal Reserve with money printed up with the ink still wet.

Nearly a trillion in Federal bonds bought up in the last year alone (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TREAST) and when this snaps, the results are going to be catastrophic.

nynco

11-10-2012, 20:35

I would end the FED and return to the constitutionally mandated duty of the Treasury to control the money supply.

I would also end all the loop holes that people use to get out of paying taxes. I would also cut a bunch of stuff from the federal budget.

XC700116

11-10-2012, 22:39

Oh please point to where I can buy a house in the Denver metro area for 60K that is not falling down. Go....

2 BR 1 Bath built in 1996 $60K

http://www.cohomefinder.com/p/80634/1308066-3439-35th-St-Greeley-CO-80634.htm

nynco

11-10-2012, 22:54

That was over 15 years ago and in Greely...

BigDee

11-10-2012, 23:46

How do you reestablish the middle class? You create a tax code that taxes the life out of the profits of the major job creators. You do not tax or threaten their revenue, you do however tax the life out of their profits.

Trickle down economics do not work.

nynco

11-11-2012, 00:02

Agreed trickle down does not work. We have a long history to look at as to what works and what does not. Resoundingly voodoo economics has failed. We don't just need to raise taxes on Americans. What we need to do is raise taxes on foreigners. Bring back the tariff system that the founding fathers establish that existed all the way till Reagan started to dismantle them and Clintoon put on steroids with NAFTA.

centrarchidae

11-11-2012, 03:20

Yes! Because the Smoot-Hawley tariff worked soooo well the first time!

Agreed trickle down does not work. We have a long history to look at as to what works and what does not. Resoundingly voodoo economics has failed. We don't just need to raise taxes on Americans. What we need to do is raise taxes on foreigners. Bring back the tariff system that the founding fathers establish that existed all the way till Reagan started to dismantle them and Clintoon put on steroids with NAFTA.

Singlestack

11-11-2012, 08:06

Tort reform should have been part of the over-regulation of the health care industry that is going on.
Again you guys don't seem to get the obvious. If you take away peoples rights to sue in your "tort reform" there is no system that is functional in the tort cases that will ever stop a company from doing as they please.

One thing I really can't stand about liberals is the constant use of the strawman argument. A strawman is where a position is misrepresented as something it isn't, then attacked. In this case, the poster says tort reform is "taking away peoples right to sue". Absolute BS. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is proposing Tort Reform and limiting a "right to sue".If the poster is intellectually honest, he will explain exactly how Tort reform takes away "peoples right to sue". He can't.

A more recent example of strawman arguments is the Democrat Party saying that Republicans want to take a way a woman's right to birth control. Again, couldn't be further from the truth, but it certainly fires up the base, no doubt about it. The reality is they want all taxpayers to fund free contraceptives (and abortion, for that matter) - even those who are morally and religiously opposed to that. The posit the strawman, since making the true argument as I stated above won't have the same effect. So demagogue and lie to your hearts content.

Singlestack

Pancho Villa

11-11-2012, 08:18

It's a historical fact, singlestack. You can't argue with that.

spqrzilla

11-11-2012, 10:05

Singlestack, in nynco's case, its obvious that he isn't using a strawman argument. Instead, what is happening is that nynco is truly utterly ignorant of the arguments of his political opponents. He has no clue what their stance is, what their policy positions are, and what the explanations for those policy positions are. The result is that he makes up stuff, presents utterly cartoonish versions of his opponents and looks like a fool.

spqrzilla

11-11-2012, 10:06

spqrzilla

11-11-2012, 10:09

Agreed trickle down does not work. This is hilarious because the Democrats agreed in December of 2010 that "trickle down" (an outrageously ignorant misrepresentation) does work when they agreed to continue the Bush era tax rates because they feared sabotaging the economy.

We have a long history to look at as to what works and what does not. Resoundingly voodoo economics has failed. We don't just need to raise taxes on Americans. What we need to do is raise taxes on foreigners. Bring back the tariff system that the founding fathers establish that existed all the way till Reagan started to dismantle them and Clintoon put on steroids with NAFTA.

And we raise taxes on "foreigners" by getting them to come to America, walk through a dark alley and mug them? Or what? Send out Marine Amphib Units to invade foreign countries and haul off their goods like Viking raids?

I can't believe how your comments get more and more ridiculous.

Singlestack

11-11-2012, 10:22

It's a historical fact, singlestack. You can't argue with that.

Uh, no. And yes, I'm arguing with that. Great comeback.

Pancho Villa

11-11-2012, 10:49

Uh, no. And yes, I'm arguing with that. Great comeback.

I think your sarcasm detector is broken...

Delfuego

11-11-2012, 10:52

This is hilarious because the Democrats agreed in December of 2010 that "trickle down" (an outrageously ignorant misrepresentation)
Its called Voodoo economics for a reason... look it up; GHWB coined that term, he is a fiscal conservative.

does work when they agreed to continue the Bush era tax rates because they feared sabotaging the economy.
More like the fear of not being RE-ELECTED!

Someone please close this thread too. [NoEvil]

spqrzilla

11-11-2012, 10:56

Delfuego

11-11-2012, 11:05

No, GHWB wasn't a fiscal conservative at all. And "Voodoo economics" referred to overall tax policy in the form of tax cuts, not the same as the epithet "trickle down" which referred to encouraging investment among the upper income quintile's.
You clearly either have no grasp or refuse to except facts. The two are synonymous (period!). LOOK IT UP. GHWB was and did, I was alive and I remember.

Additionally using big words like quintile doesn't make you sound more intelligent. [Smart]

Please close this thread, it lives in a void of logic and is going nowhere fast...[NoClue]

Delfuego out!

Edit: This should be in the freakin' "Politics" sub-forum too! [Bang]

TDYRanger

11-11-2012, 12:08

This thing went off the tracks in a big way. What happened to the smiley that was shooting itself in the head? because that is what I'm feeling reading this at this point. this will do though....

15059

Sharpienads

11-11-2012, 12:24

You clearly either have no grasp or refuse to except facts. The two are synonymous (period!). LOOK IT UP. GHWB was and did, I was alive and I remember.

Additionally using big words like quintile doesn't make you sound more intelligent. [Smart]

Please close this thread, it lives in a void of logic and is going nowhere fast...[NoClue]

Delfuego out!

Edit: This should be in the freakin' "Politics" sub-forum too! [Bang]

How does this thread relate to "current and pending legislation that affects the shooting sports"?

Bailey Guns

11-11-2012, 14:01

^^^Still trying to get an answer to that question, I see.

Sharpienads

11-11-2012, 14:58

^^^Still trying to get an answer to that question, I see.

Yep. Unless I get a different answer from somebody with authority, I'll continue to follow the forum's thread titles and sub-titles.

spqrzilla

11-11-2012, 16:49

You clearly either have no grasp or refuse to except facts. The two are synonymous (period!). LOOK IT UP. GHWB was and did, I was alive and I remember.
Well, that's quite the authoritative rebuttal.

Additionally using big words like quintile doesn't make you sound more intelligent. [Smart]

Please close this thread, it lives in a void of logic and is going nowhere fast...[NoClue]

Delfuego out!

Edit: This should be in the freakin' "Politics" sub-forum too! [Bang]
I'll use words of fewer syllables in the future.