Flip Flop

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by lazs2

ok sixpense I guess you will evade the subject forever so.. bluntly... what was the revenue for taxes for Regan years and for the adminestration berfore him?

You brought it up, you tell me, why should I have to do your research?

How do you figure we have to work more to survive?

If new labor laws take away money from the worker, he has to work more to make the same amount of money and live the same lifestyle.

I didn't have color tv and cable in 70.

ah, no one had cable in 70

I didn't have a computer or an internet connection or a dishwasher or a car that got 30 mpg and didn't need a tuneup for 100,000 miles and I had a 3 year old car that needed to be tuned up every trip and lubed... You know hit all the grease fittings every 2,000 miles..  My house was a flat top 3 (really more like two) bedroom with one bath and no central heat or a/c and it was a total of about 1100 square feet.

Alot of people didn't, some ,like Rip, had only the clothes on his back, but he got an education, and look at him now.  

The avg price of a single family home here is 306k, and the prices are rising everywhere, how does taking money away from the worker help you buy a home?

public schools suck tho and are pretty much a waste of time

Well, hey then, bring on home schooling(which has shown to be effective), however, you will need a parent at home to teach them. If you say pay for private school, again, how does taking away from worker help accomplish this?

most will fail tho no matter what you give them

Most will succeed if you give them the tools to do so

What I buy with my money now is much more than I could buy with it back in the 70's or 80's.

It is? Show me

If we could build 2 bedroom on bath homes of 1100 square feet with no frills... they would be affordable but

I don't know where you live, but that house fetches a quarter million here

The payments are less than the payments on a low end car in the 80's all things considered

I believe the payment theory has alot more to do with the interest rates than the price of the car. As for the 9000 dollar car, we had yugos in the 80's too, you get what you pay for, and can afford.

we do less work for what we get paid too

I don't know about that, putting up a fence still takes the same amount of work, digging that hole still takes the same, laying block still takes the same amount of work, loading a truck, working heavy equipment, etc.

It is easier now than any time in history.

We are working alot more hours than any time in history, that would make it harder.

[lazs2]

ahh.. I see... so who do we believe you or me?   you say decreasing taxes decreases revenue and I say that Regan tax breaks increased revenue.   either way... I belive in decreased taxes.

we do work less to survive.. there are no new labor laws that change that "if" is not "is"..   predicting gloom is easy but risky.

an no.. no one had cable or computers or a myraid of other toys.. everyone has em now.  even peoole on welfare.

How is anyone taking money away from the worker?  I am saying that his money buys more now than ever.   What law is going to take money away from the "worker" on minimum or close to minimum wage?

schooling... hme schooling is good but why should we have to when we are paying more pere student for public school right now than even the best private schools... I am talking vouchers... just give us back our money to school our kids.

cars... a hugo was not a car.. the warranty was I belive about 90 days and they were a very poorly made automobile  mostly you just lost your investment within a year or less... now.. you can buy a KIA or Hyndi or whatever for say 9,000 and have a car that you could make 50 round trips to NY from LA .... huge difference and... you would be listening to a 4 speaker stereo and CD in air conditioned comfort.

I worked back in the days of your workers paradise and it was rough.   I am not sure many of the kids today could do it withour a huge change of attitude.

as for housing... we could build affordable housing but many regulations have allmost killed the idea... first off... people won't settle for an 1100 sq ft house with one bath and wall heaters...  plus... environmentalists have driven the cost of materials and permits sky high.   I can build such a house for less than the fees charged by city and state.  

Things are better now than ever but you can sabatoge your life and then we have to pay for it..  if you want everything right now including a family and every toy... you will be disapointed

lazs

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by lazs2

ahh.. I see... so who do we believe you or me?   you say decreasing taxes decreases revenue and I say that Regan tax breaks increased revenue.  

You say Reagan increased revenue, but show nothing to support that. I show you everything that disproves that, who do you believe?

either way... I belive in decreased taxes.
 
Reagan had the biggest tax increase in U.S. history, 98 billion, then Bush Sr., who had the misfortune of inheriting the mess, had to raise taxes again. You support less taxes?

"trickle down" was a mistake, even David Stockman, Reagan's budget architect, admitted the whole rosy scenario was a fraud (Triumph of Politics, 1987) -- an intentional fraud.

When you give corporations a 1.8 trillion dollar tax cut, it doesn't always go back into the economy, it leaves the country in the form of foreign investing and outsourcing. If that 1.8 trillion was given to small business, it goes right back into your community and not to China.

there are no new labor laws that change that "if" is not "is"

We work more to survive, you are not reading links again
http://www.indiana.edu/~ocmhp/040904/text/workweek.shtml


How is anyone taking money away from the worker?

Ah, by taking away their overtime after 40 hours?

am saying that his money buys more now than ever.

Show me

why should we have to when we are paying more pere student for public school right now than even the best private schools

Again, show me

just give us back our money to school our kids.

You think that what you would get back in tax money that actually goes to schools would pay for private school? I wanted to my daughter in private elementary school, it was 4k a year before books and clothes(uniform). A voucher, do you mean tax money? Like a pell grant?

[BB Gun]

Back on topic...

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Investigation/kerry_vietnam_medals_040425-1.html

Flip:

"I gave back, I can't remember, 6, 7, 8, 9 medals," Kerry said in an interview on a Washington, D.C. news program on WRC-TV's called Viewpoints on November 6, 1971, according to a tape obtained by ABCNEWS.

Flop:

The statement directly contradicts Kerry's most recent claims on the disputed subject to the Los Angeles Times last Friday. "I never ever implied that I did it, " Kerry told the newspaper, responding to the question of whether he threw away his medals in protest.



Yep, I'm a tool...  

BB

[lazs2]

sixpense.. no... you have shown me no numbers at all except deficit numbers.

I see nothing that says low income people will lose overtime pay for hours worked over 40.

I was not for either the Regan or Bush tax increases but am less for increased social programs that have to be paid for.

as for voucher yes... i mean give the people back their tax money.   4K is nothing compared to what the average state spends per student for it's all but useless schooling in public schools.

Most of the reason it is hard to have housing is because of regulations... The cost of regulations is enormous and regulations eat into our income everywhere we look.   you can't buy diesel to farm without them adding a "environmental fee"  who do you think pays that?   There are air quality fees on emergency generators at hospitals and municipal buildings.. Who do you think pays those?   Those are just a few of the myriad of regulations that we didn't have back when but have now.  

lazs

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by lazs2
sixpense.. no... you have shown me no numbers at all except deficit numbers.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Sixpence

If you look closer, you can see that although revenue was much higher during the Carter years, spending was much higher. And although he didn't spend more than the fed brought in, he should have been saving, unfortunately, that never happens.

If you look during the Clinton years, revenue was good, but the republicans managed to keep him from spending, it was a match made in heaven. If a republican had been president, the republicans probably would have gone along with any increase in spending he proposed. Clinton as president and a republican Congress actually complemented each other well.

Now take a look at GW's numbers, if that doesn't get your attention, nothing will. Whoever wins this election is going to have to raise taxes.

These numbers show avg revenue change, avg spending change, and avg deficit.
                         
Truman        7-4-1
Eisenhower 5 4 3
Kennedy 5 7 5
Johnson 8 10 6
Nixon 9 7 5
Ford 10 13 11
Carter 13 13 12
Reagan 7 8 19
 
Bush Sr. 5 7 18
Clinton 8 3 3
GW. Bush -1 6 10

[Nash]

But! But!   uh... 911!!!!

Changed everything dude!

[lazs2]

six...where did that come from?  It seems odd that we have not gotten any revenues while Bush has been in power... I should have been getting more money back from the government than I paid in taxes if the government has/had minus revenues?  

oh... wait... that is a "revenue hike"  not the total revenue that was generated but the hike..  Not what I asked for.  I say that I have heard that revenues increased during Regans years even with tax cuts.  I don't want the government to have more revenue so much as I want to have less taxes..  If they have more revenue I want it to go to pay debt only.  

nash... think about this... you don't even live here man... you don't have a stake in this.    why are you so concerned and getting so worked up when you have enough problems of your own?

lazs

[Nash]

k lazs for the second time I aint getting worked up. Are you?

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by lazs2

oh... wait... that is a "revenue hike"  not the total revenue that was generated but the hike..  Not what I asked for.

Well duh, since the great depression, we have grown in revenue with every president, that is what it is supposed to do. Carter's % of revenue growth was alot higher.

I say that I have heard that revenues increased during Regans years even with tax cuts.

From who? This gives you a little insight how he raised revenue w/o calling it taxes. http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ms04_taylor/reagan041601.html  

I don't want the government to have more revenue so much as I want to have less taxes

But if laying "revenue enhancements" on the working class that offset their tax cut and increase spending, you have not had your taxes cut, in the end, they have been raised.

If they have more revenue I want it to go to pay debt only.

During the Clinton years, republicans fought spending, so our debt was being paid, but with Bush, they stick to party doctrine and agree with any spending he proposes.

GW is the first president since the great depression to see revenue decline, on top of that, he has increased spending. This is not good.

[lazs2]

this is silly... you need to look at revenue not revenue increase.   I don't want "revenue" to increase if it means an increase in tax rate.

The chart is meaningless to what we are discussing.   If revenues increased in realtionship to tax rates or decresed in relation to tax rates then you would have something...

What your chart shows is that Bush decreased taxes.   It also seems to show that Regan slowed tax increases and that it stimulated the economy to the point where revenue increased but... it is hard to tell what is happening from the  graph...

That is why I asked you where you got it since it might have some more explanation on what it is trying to say... like...  increase from what?  from the start of the admin or from the previous?

what was spenmding on?   social programs that will continue on into the next admin and beyond or one time spending like a war?   Military buildup?  

even a cursory look will show you that teh ones who screwed us for life are kenedy johnson carter and ford.    3 out of 4 are democrats.

So... where is this site for the graphs?  Do they have any useful ones too?

oh.. I will admit that we agree on one thing.. when you have oppossing parties sharing power (rep pres dem congress or vice versa) things go better... the more government is gridlocked and unable to pass laws the better off we all are..  if they are gridloclked and unable to spend money it is even better.

lazs

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by lazs2

this is silly... you need to look at revenue not revenue increase.   I don't want "revenue" to increase if it means an increase in tax rate.

That's what Reagan did

The chart is meaningless to what we are discussing.

How?

If revenues increased in realtionship to tax rates or decresed in relation to tax rates then you would have something

You have been telling me that that Reagan's tax cuts increased revenue, make up your mind.

What your chart shows is that Bush decreased taxes.

It also shows you he increased spending.

It also seems to show that Regan slowed tax increases and that it stimulated the economy to the point where revenue increased but

Lol, where? He raised taxes on the working class.
 In fact, almost half of the increased revenues of the Reagan era came from Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, which were increased by President Reagan and  Congress in 1983.  Current Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan chaired the commission that recommended the tax increase.  Finance Committee Chairman Bob Dole handled the tax bill in the Republican-majority Senate.  The payroll tax increase more than offset the 1981 income tax break for millions of wage-earning Americans, and also hit small businesses and the self-employed to whom the employer match is a substantial burden.  Since the Social Security tax applies only to wages, and then only up to a modest cap, those who benefited most from the income tax cuts were touched least by the Social Security increase.  

 The Reagan Administration and the split Congress also raised taxes in 1982, 1984, and 1986, although back then they were called "revenue enhancements," not tax increases.  Of course, despite the "more for less" theory of supply-side economics, the Reagan years began a period of exploding federal deficits that have led us to our current state of a $5.7 trillion debt and $1 billion per day in interest payments.  

it is hard to tell what is happening from the  graph

Sure, if you can't read a graph.

like...  increase from what?  from the start of the admin or from the previous?

Each shows the increase of that president's term compared to the previous. I can't help it if you do not want to look things up, or refuse to.

what was spenmding on?

What you spend it on does not matter, if you spend more than your means, you put yourself in debt. Who pays for this debt? You! How? With your taxes! Who gets your tax money? 30% paid to debt to foreign countries!(wealth leaving the country)

even a cursory look will show you that teh ones who screwed us for life are kenedy johnson carter and ford.    3 out of 4 are democrats.

Amazing how the graph comes in handy for that, especially where you left out Reagan, Bush , and Bush. 3 out of 3 republicans.

So... where is this site for the graphs?  Do they have any useful ones too?

You show me the sites for your data, i'll show you mine.

[lazs2]

Are you serious?  you don't want to show the site for your charts?

I say that revenue increased even with tax cuts during Regans time.   Your chart,that may be made up by you for all we know, does nothing to disprove this.

your (and for lack of other proof we will call it YOUR) chart) does not show revenue only increase in revenue.

What you call tax increases for Regan are increases for social security and medicare which are supposedly insurance.   The fact that the increases affect the people who are using them is... well.... logical.   If, the increases were not spent on medicare or social security then those programs need to be looked at but.... as everyone tells us... we need to spend even more today if we are to "save" these worhtless programs.  

 The working class are paying more for insurance?   so what?    They need to change insurance companies or insist that the companies they have (social security/medicare) are run more effiecently...  If you continue to let government run them then you had better expect them to be run poorly and increase in cost.  

lazs

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by lazs2
Are you serious?  you don't want to show the site for your charts?

And you don't want to show yours? Are you serious?

Here http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/5577/philo/fedbgt4.htm

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/5577/philo/incomes.htm

I show you links and graphs, you show me  "I hear".