Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on April 23, 2004, 12:44:16 AM
-
Flip flip flop flop flip flop flip.
Flop flop flip flop flip flop flip.
Flip flip flip flop flop flop flip flip flip flip flop
Flop flip flip flop flip flop flop.
Now correct me if I'm wrong... but I aint never seen these GHEY words on this BBS as of, oh.... 3 months ago,
Now, lotsa folks are happily singing la la la flip flop flop flip flop flip all of a sudden.
Whysaat?
Why are otherwise normal people chanting "flip flop" (god it's gross just typing those femmy words)....
If the sum total of your little battle with Kerry is to say flippity flop flippity flop.... Then you are...
a) Getting used, hardcore
b) see a.
-
the latest issue of the onion has an article about a flip flop lost to the sea.
http://www.onion.com/index.php?issue=4016
Let us all bow our heads in remembrance...
They also mention mr funked! er kinda
http://www.onion.com/opinion/index.php?issue=4016
-
Originally posted by Octavius
They also mention mr funked! er kinda
Heh.... You seen this?
James Brown high as a freaking kite! shreckin' Hilarious.
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/jamesbrown.wmv
"I feel good..... JAM!"
As wasted as he is, even he doesn't say "flip flop".... gad.
-
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Classic.
-
Well now when I get the blues, gonna get me a rockin' chair
Well now when I get the blues, gonna get me a rockin' chair
When the blues overtake me, gonna rock right away from here
Now when I get lonesome I get on the telephone
Now when I get lonesome I get on the telephone
Well, I call my baby, tell her I'm on my way back home
Well, flip, flop & fly
I don't care if I die
Flip, flop & fly
I don't care if I die
Don't ever leave me, don't ever say goodbye
Give me one last kiss; hold it a long, long time
Give me one last kiss; hold it a long, long time
Well, hold that kiss 'til I feel it in my head like wine
Well, here come my baby, flashin' a new gold tooth
Well, here come my baby, flashin' a new gold tooth
Well, she's so small she can mambo in a pay phone booth
Well, flip, flop & fly
I don't care if I die
Flip, flop & fly
I don't care if I die
Don't ever leave me, don't ever say goodbye
Well, like a Mississippi bullfrog sittin' on a hollow stump
Well, like a Mississippi bullfrog sittin' on a hollow stump
I got so many women I don't know which way to jump
Well, flip, flop & fly
I don't care if I die
Flip, flop & fly
I don't care if I die
Don't ever leave me, don't ever say goodbye
-
I have a pair for the beach, also wear them around the house though ...
(http://www.saintmarys.edu/~bookstore/images/gifts/misc/flipflop.jpg)
-
You back on drugs Nash?
;)
-
Blew out my flip flop, stepped on a pop top....
-
Sorry Nash.... I really try to pay attention to what you write but... that avatar keeps sucking me in like a bug light...:eek:
-
do they still call those things jap slaps?
lazs
-
Is it just me, or does anyone else immediately put any guy wearing flip-flops with long pants "under suspicion"?
Lol laz, guess not, because I've never heard it. :)
-
I believe the ones mean old Lazs is referring to were made outta bamboo or reeds or something. Big back int the 60's and 70's.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
You back on drugs Nash?
;)
Program that Nash watched as a youngster:
http://toplist.funnyjunk.com/hahaha/joint.swf
;)
Cut and paste! :P
-
flip/flop is a pretty good reason not to choose someone to be a leader. A leader should have a vision and the resolve to bring it about. Of course you want a leader to be wise enough to know when to change but not someone that reverses every time the wind changes direction.
-
yep MT... thems the ones...
lazs
-
flip/flop is a pretty good reason not to choose someone to be a leader. A leader should have a vision and the resolve to bring it about. Of course you want a leader to be wise enough to know when to change but not someone that reverses every time the wind changes direction.
I agree. Too bad Mr Kerry isn't the only "Flip Flopper." Certainly a biased source (below), but the list seems fairly accurate [and a fairly accurate view of Washington politics in general]. Of course there is no discussion for the complexities behind the flip flops, but that same level of discussion typically isn't applied to Kerry's flip flops either.
If Bush wants to compare flip-flops with Kerry—Bring it on!
By Mick Youther
The Bush Attack Machine started to define John Kerry as “a captive of special interests”. Then it came out that Bush had received more campaign contributions from Enron alone, than Kerry had received from lobbyists during all his years in the Senate; so the attack moved on to Plan B— defining Kerry as a flip-flopper and Bush as “steady and steadfast”.
They know that anyone who has been in the Senate for eighteen years will have a voting record that can be distorted to look bad. If a Senator voted against a bloated spending-bill that contained funding for breast cancer research, they can claim that Senator is against breast cancer research. Ask John McCain—they pulled that one on him in the 2000 primary.
Now their problem is that the attack on Kerry has resulted in lists of Bush flip-flops popping up everywhere. This is just a sampling of the kinds of things that are coming out:
• When Bush first took office, he said the economy was so good we should have huge tax cuts, but now he claims we were in a recession then and that is why we now have record deficits.
• Candidate Bush was very vocal in his criticism of nation building, but now President Bush is busy building nations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and it looks like Haiti is next. These nations are being built with our soldier’s lives and our tax dollars.
• Bush claimed his budget plan would reduce the National Debt. Instead, the federal debt has increased to almost $7 trillion.
• Candidate Bush promised to protect the Social Security trust fund, but President Bush has already squandered more than $350 billion from the fund. (Consortium News, 3/2/04)
• Bush said he would, “enforce fiscal discipline on Congress, because when spending is out of control, deficits increase and our economic growth is hindered...", but federal spending has increased 23.7 percent since he took office. (Bill Gallagher, Friends of Liberty, 12/11/03)
• Candidate Bush proposed regulating carbon dioxide, but two months after taking office, President Bush changed his mind.
• Bush opposed a Homeland Security Department when it was proposed by Democrats; but later embraced the idea and took credit for it.
• Bush said he would veto the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation, but changed his mind and signed it.
• Bush opposed an investigation of the attacks of 9/11—then he supported it, but his administration has done everything it could to obstruct the investigation.
• Bush opposed an Iraq WMD investigation, but then he's for it because he has to pretend he’s interested in why he was so wrong about Iraq’s WMD.
• When asked about gay marriage, candidate Bush said, “the state can do what they want to do,”—but now President Bush wants a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
• During an unsuccessful run for Congress in 1978, Bush opposed the pro-life amendment and favored leaving the abortion question to a woman and her doctor. Then, like his father before him, he customized his beliefs to become more electable to conservatives. (The Nation, 6/15/00)
• Bush promised money for first responders, but failed to provide the funds.
• Bush promised billions of dollars to help fight AIDS in Africa, but failed to provide the funds.
• Bush presented his “No Child Left Behind Program” with great fanfare, but failed to provide the funds.
• Bush continues to praise American troops, but continues to try to cut benefits for them and their families.
• Bush said, "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden”, but changed it to, "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.”
To understand why steady and steadfast Bush would change his mind about so many important issues, you must understand the problem he faces every day. He has to somehow fool enough voters to be reelected, without actually doing anything for them or straying too far from the NeoCon’s agenda for the New World Order. So, if a majority of voters want something—like clean air, Bush is for it. He won’t follow through, or he won’t fund it properly, or he will do the exact opposite of what he promised; but he will continue to be for it. If a majority of voters oppose something; then Bush will oppose it too, but he will go right ahead and do it anyway—while speaking against it.
If that is the kind of President you want, Bush is your man. If you’d like something better, John Kerry is your man.
Posted March 20, 2004
[edit: actually some of Bush's flip flops noted above are more unfunded soundbytes, where you propose something that sounds good and popular (but may not be politically or fiscally practical), but then don't provide the funding to actually make it happen]
Charon
-
Torture the statistics enough they will confess.
-
• When Bush first took office, he said the economy was so good we should have huge tax cuts, but now he claims we were in a recession then and that is why we now have record deficits.
I can't remember hearing him say that one time! Does anybody here remember Clinton/Gore crying about how Bush was "talking down the economy" Durign the election? That tax cut was to stop the economy from getting worse and in my view worked.
• Candidate Bush was very vocal in his criticism of nation building, but now President Bush is busy building nations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and it looks like Haiti is next. These nations are being built with our soldier’s lives and our tax dollars.
This is somewhat true but things are a heck of a lot diferent then they were 4 years ago. It can also be argued that this is one of those times when I leader see's where he was wrong. It could also be that maybe Bush thinks he can do it better than Clinton did. Wasn't Hatii one of Clinton's big successes? ;)
• Bush claimed his budget plan would reduce the National Debt. Instead, the federal debt has increased to almost $7 trillion.
He said that before he knew we'd have a 2 front war. But this is a very sore spot with me. He should have vetoed some spending bills to cut down on the pork. I think that was conresses "fee" for giving him most of what he wants.
• Candidate Bush promised to protect the Social Security trust fund, but President Bush has already squandered more than $350 billion from the fund. (Consortium News, 3/2/04)
huh?
• Bush said he would, “enforce fiscal discipline on Congress, because when spending is out of control, deficits increase and our economic growth is hindered...", but federal spending has increased 23.7 percent since he took office. (Bill Gallagher, Friends of Liberty, 12/11/03)
Isn't the war the biggest part of that increase? Didn't we have to replace a bunch of weapons that were used in the 90's and not restocked? Otherewise see my answer above :)
• Candidate Bush proposed regulating carbon dioxide, but two months after taking office, President Bush changed his mind.
this guy talking about Kyoto? Good move by Bush if you ask me, which you didn't :D
• Bush opposed a Homeland Security Department when it was proposed by Democrats; but later embraced the idea and took credit for it.
Yes becaues all plans should have remained the same after 9/11. There was no need for change at all, none I tell ya!
• Bush said he would veto the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation, but changed his mind and signed it.
Must have been something political envolved ;)
• Bush opposed an investigation of the attacks of 9/11—then he supported it, but his administration has done everything it could to obstruct the investigation.
Prove it....
• Bush opposed an Iraq WMD investigation, but then he's for it because he has to pretend he’s interested in why he was so wrong about Iraq’s WMD.
subjective partisan opinion, again prove it...
• When asked about gay marriage, candidate Bush said, “the state can do what they want to do,”—but now President Bush wants a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
because courts have been making the decisions not the States.
• During an unsuccessful run for Congress in 1978, Bush opposed the pro-life amendment and favored leaving the abortion question to a woman and her doctor. Then, like his father before him, he customized his beliefs to become more electable to conservatives. (The Nation, 6/15/00)
couldn't he have changed his mind after he found God when he was 40? Again subjective partisan opinion.
• Bush promised money for first responders, but failed to provide the funds.
Hmm bush proposed money he can't promise anything and I've never heared him say the words "I promise".
Bush promised billions of dollars to help fight AIDS in Africa, but failed to provide the funds.
Again Bush proposed this and never promised. Congress controls the purse strings doesn't the author of this article know that? I be he does ;)
• Bush presented his “No Child Left Behind Program” with great fanfare, but failed to provide the funds.
wasn't this one of the first things he got through congress? didn't he partner with ole teddy the drunk murderer on this? ;)
• Bush continues to praise American troops, but continues to try to cut benefits for them and their families.
prove it, what an assinign statement.
• Bush said, "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden”, but changed it to, "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.”
heh what a tool this "writer" is.
-
See Udie, you're providing all sorts of explinations. Similar explanations exist for Kerry' flip flops. For example:
You have to know how the Senate works to begin to fathom Kerry's now notorious statement defending his stance on appropriations for reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan: "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." That is shorthand for saying he voted in favor of a bill that would have rolled back some of Bush's tax cuts to help cover the rebuilding costs; when that version failed, he voted against the bill that excluded the tax provision.
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/05/flip.flops.tm/
What gets me, is that so many people are so good at seeing through the political PR BS when it involves the other party, but absolutely refuse to take a good hard look (using the same focus) at their candidate or their party.
[edit: as for the last line, Udie, those are direct quotes with similar quotes existing for Cheney and I think Rumsfeld.]
Charon
-
With a campaign, and an attack strategy, the goal is to develop a few simple messages and repeat those messages until they sink in. The reasons are simple and related to human behaviors that every advertising guru, PR flack and marketer gets drilled into them from their first "101" level university class.
1. Most people will not put any real effort into digging for the truth. You're lucky if they read past the headline and lead paragraph of a news story -- if they even read the newspaper at all (not to mention the inadequacies of a 45 sec to 1.5 minutes for a broadcast news piece). A rebuttal may easily be overlooked, particularly if it happens a day or two later and comes out on page 20. Too many rebuttals, even if accurate and honest, can put a candidate on the defensive and make him/her look guilty. It’s better to concentrate on attacking the other guy/gal with most of that effort. This covers marketing to the "middle ground" voters.
2. The hard core supporters will always be motivated to see the best in their candidate and see the worst in the other. This works really well with point no. 1. The goal is not to convert any of the hard cores, but to get them motivated to turn out on Election Day.
3. It's easy (see 1 and 2) to craft messages that push the buttons of certain demographics. Joe-six-pack, soccer mom, angry white male, YUPPIE, BUPPIE, etc. refer to groups that have certain cultural identities. And guess what, they are generally accurate and can be banked upon. People make an awful lot of $ selling everything from hemorrhoid cream to candidates to wars using the right list/time slot/audience and the proper message development. Where message development is concerned, emotion is more important than fact (unless its B2B communications).
The fewer messages the better, and as long as there are no outright lies, omissions and slant are perfectly acceptable (again, it is generally counter productive to spend too much time cleaning them up). Focus groups and surveys help identify which messages (usually from a long list) have the most traction with the particular audience.
4. Once a message is crafted the goal is to repeat the message every time someone in the campaign/party/administration has an opportunity to speak and through advertising. You always stay on message. For example, it is no surprise (except for the level of success), that 70 some percent of the people in NY think Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 even though nobody in the administration actually said he was. All that is needed is to mention Saddam Hussein and either terrorist, 9/11 or Al Queda within the 2-4 sentences of each other. The human mind will fill in the rest. “September 11 taught us one thing, we have to be vigilant against terrorists,” said speechwriter Charon, though Admin person’s lips. “Saddam Hussein has WMD, and he poses a threat to the region and the world, and that threat must be removed.”
So far, Kerry is being defined as a Flip Flopper (to be expected with any Washington politician), whose war record is not as good as would be suggested. Bush is being challenged on the War in Iraq (which he certainly spearheaded) and the economy (which is bigger than one man, even the president). However, don’t expect a great deal of in-depth analysis for either since that only confuses the majority of voters. Attack ads are just too effective.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
See Udie, you're providing all sorts of explinations. Similar explanations exist for Kerry' flip flops. For example:
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/05/flip.flops.tm/
What gets me, is that so many people are so good at seeing through the political PR BS when it involves the other party, but absolutely refuse to take a good hard look (using the same focus) at their candidate or their party.
[edit: as for the last line, Udie, those are direct quotes with similar quotes existing for Cheney and I think Rumsfeld.]
Charon
I'm sure kerry does have some valid reasons for some of his flip flops. But I'm also sure he has many many many more flip flops than valid reasons. I see Bushes politics too ;) and it's obvious that he's on the attack. Problem for the Dems is that Bush has been right. ;) What's the quote from Kerry in the Bush add? "I actually voted for the resolution on Iraq, before I voted against it." That says it all right there. Kerry is NOT a leader Bush is. You may not like Bushes style of leadership but at least he's leading! What has Kerry led in the past 25 to 30 years?
And yes I know that last line was a direct quote from Bush, I remember when he said it. The hack left out the part about how much time passed between those 2 statements and the fact that we had crushed Al Queda's base of operations. Do you think that the "writer" thought we actually stopped looking for him because Bush made that statement?
-
My sole reason for not voting for him is that he is a democrat. Even if he were a "good" democrat... he will still team up with the other women and take away my rights every chance he gets.
lazs
-
Kerry is a walking talking noodle..... [forrestgump voice] John kerry is like a box of chocolates.......you never know what your gonna get.....that's all I've got to say about that [/forrestgump voice]
-
Sudan!
-
Here's a pretty good wrap up of the "$87 billion/voted for and against" part of the attack ad. Again, it illustrates how legislation work in Washington, and how flip flopping is a way of life.
The updated version of the ad was nearly identical in wording but added near the end footage of Kerry giving an awkward but widely quoted explanation of his position:
Announcer: And what does Kerry say now?
Kerry: I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it
Kerry was referring to a measure he co-sponsored that would have provided the $87 billion while also temporarily reversing Bush's tax cuts for those making $400,000 a year or more. That measure was rejected 57-42.
Good review of the overall commercial as well.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155
Attack crap like this has been around as long as American politics, but at least in the old days they would go the extra mile and try to buy your vote with some good whiskey :)
I think Kerry is just another Washington Hack, but the lesser of two evils for the time being IMO. I'm really tired of the neo con vision and they way they do business to achieve their foreign policy goals.
Charon
-
Originally posted by lazs2
My sole reason for not voting for him is that he is a democrat. Even if he were a "good" democrat... he will still team up with the other women and take away my rights every chance he gets.
lazs
Yeah, like your right to privacy, or your right to overtime after 40 hours.
-
how is my right to privacy endangered and who ever said that "overtime" was a right?/.. I work that out with my employer or union or whatever. I sure as heck wouldn't vote for a democrat based on protecting "overtime" gotta do better than that.... And no... the spotted owl is not one of my worries either... Nor is banning scooters to 'save the children' or propping up a failed (and deservedly so) school system.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Yeah, like your right to privacy, or your right to overtime after 40 hours.
The Bush administration has touted the new overtime rules as a long overdue update of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, pointing out that they would extend overtime pay eligibility to an estimated 1.3 million low-income workers.
Under federal law, hourly employees are entitled to time-and-a-half pay (150 percent of the normal rate) if their work week extends beyond 40 hours.
But a study last year by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a non-partisan Washington think tank, found the new rules would also remove overtime pay protection from some eight million workers by reclassifying them as executives, professionals--in the case of Garrity, for example--and administrators.
Workers earning more than $65,000 a year would also be exempt from overtime pay
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0115-01.htm
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0115-01.htm
http://www.laborresearch.org/story.php?id=16
"Last year, the Labor Department investigated more than 31,000 worker complaints and recovered $212 million in unpaid overtime wages, a 21 percent increase over 2002. "
"Republican Senators Judd Gregg (NH) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) have proposed legislation (S.B. 624) to amend the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and allow employers to schedule work weeks of up to 50 hours without having to pay time and a half for overtime."
"In 1997, Senate Democrats beat back a similar assault on overtime laws propsed by former U.S. Senator John Ashcroft (now U.S. Attorney General under Bush)."
Prepare yourself for the standard 50 hour workweek, enjoy.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
http://www.laborresearch.org/story.php?id=16
"Last year, the Labor Department investigated more than 31,000 worker complaints and recovered $212 million in unpaid overtime wages, a 21 percent increase over 2002. "
"Republican Senators Judd Gregg (NH) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) have proposed legislation (S.B. 624) to amend the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and allow employers to schedule work weeks of up to 50 hours without having to pay time and a half for overtime."
"In 1997, Senate Democrats beat back a similar assault on overtime laws propsed by former U.S. Senator John Ashcroft (now U.S. Attorney General under Bush)."
Prepare yourself for the standard 50 hour workweek, enjoy.
so based on your statement I can say John Kerry wants to RAISE taxes. I dont have to say its for people that make 400K or more just that he wants to raise taxes.
PLEASE, just cause they want to authorize a 50 hour work week doesnt mean that jow blow who works for $10 boxing orders isnt gonna get his OT. it means that his manager who makes 65K a year wont.
-
Managers making 65 grand a year get paid overtime? News to me...
-
Originally posted by Nash
Managers making 65 grand a year get paid overtime? News to me...
well how about middle management....line supervisers....
seriously though...BOOO HOOOO they are making me salery!
all this is saying is that people with certain job functions or salerys will no longer be "hourly" employes.
a working mother of 3 making labor wages in a manufacturing plant is not gonna lose her overtime.
a checker at walmart during holiday season is not gonna lose their overtime.
-
I cannot find a copy of the bill, do you have one?
-
This is what I have on what it will do
"changing the 40-hour work week to 80 hours over two weeks and from allowing private employers to legally avoid paying employees for overtime and substitute compensatory time off as long as a year later"
But I do not have a copy of the legislation. The senate has voted to halt these changes, it may have been awhile ago.
-
well at least you see my point that to make a blanket statement....NO MORE OT FOR YOU does not do anyone justice.
I may not agree 100% of the bill but you have to look at all the contributing factors. Does somone making $45 really need overtime?
-
Originally posted by Gnslngr
I may not agree 100% of the bill but you have to look at all the contributing factors. Does somone making $45 really need overtime?
Lol, ask the guy making that money. Using that logic is taboo, do corporations making billions need a tax cut? But all that aside, I can't believe I can't find a copy of the legislation. I find sites that have opinions on it, but I cant find it myself to read it.
-
me neither....but ask yourself this.
IF and I do mean IF. that coorporation that saves a billion dollars passes that coorporation onto the consumer.....and other businisses did busines for cheaper....do consumers really need raises?
I know very little about economics. I take a simple approach to the subject like it is an ecosystem. Its a big circle.
Coorporations make money. They pay their employees. The employees make money and spend it giving to the coorporations. Who make money. they pay their employees.
catch my drift. if people make less money thay consume less. if corportations have to pay higher wages their products cost more.
that's about as far as I've gotten when it comes to economics.
-
Originally posted by Gnslngr
me neither....but ask yourself this.
IF and I do mean IF. that coorporation that saves a billion dollars passes that coorporation onto the consumer.....and other businisses did busines for cheaper....do consumers really need raises?
The person making the money puts that money right back into his community, helping the economy. You cannot say the same about the corporation, they can take that money and send it overseas for all you know, they are not thinking of community, they are thinking bottom line.
I know very little about economics. I take a simple approach to the subject like it is an ecosystem. Its a big circle.
I agree, the person makes more money, he spends more money.
Coorporations make money. They pay their employees.
Well, they will be paying them alot less by not having to pay them O.T.
The employees make money and spend it giving to the coorporations.
Not as much as you think, alot of it goes right back into the community, your local insurance agent, your local butcher, your local credit union, any local business that relies on consumer spending.
they pay their employees.
Less money due to the new legislation
if people make less money thay consume less.
Right on, and local business suffers, if workers get their wages cut, the whole community suffers.
if corportations have to pay higher wages their products cost more.
If legislation like that passed, and prices went down, i'de eat my hat.
Ya see, this is where we get hoodwinked, if you get a tax cut and get a 600 dollar check, but due to new labor laws you lose 1200 that year, what have you gained?
-
That was a long post, i'll try to make it simple. What you describe is called "trickle down" economics. And it doesn't work. I'll quote Bush Sr. "Trickle down economics is voodoo economics"
http://nwcitizen.com/usa/voodoo.html
http://www.wpi.edu/News/TechNews/010410/taxcut.shtml
Since tax reductions are immensely popular, Congress jumped on the bandwagon, even though then-Vice President George Bush previously had called supply-side "voodoo economics." A feeding frenzy occurred, with cliques of Congress members giving special write-offs to their favorite industries.
The result was the biggest tax cut in U.S. history: $1.8 trillion over the next nine years. But since Reagan also demanded an expensive military buildup, the federal government soon was heading for bankruptcy. Therefore, the biggest tax increase in U.S. history, $98 billion, had to be passed to try to curb the deficits. But it wasn't enough. Deficits soared, and the national debt quadrupled.
Reagan's tax increases fell mainly on consumers, low- and middle-income people. Sales and excise levies. Reagan didn't call these taxes.' They were, in his euphemistic lexicon, user fees' and revenue-enhancers.'
-
I work for the city. mid managers and all salaried workers do not get overtime. what they get is executive leave.. this is usually 2 weeks paid leave over and above their vacation and holiday leave.. they also get car allowances to drive to council meetings and such.
regular, hourly workers are not effected and would not be by this new law.
You are crying for people who are contract workers and mostly getting either comp leave or a fixed executive leave... they are mangers making big money.
no hourly worker will be getting a 50 hour work week without overtime.
lazs
-
oh... and didn't regans tax cuts bring in more taxes than ever before? we had more tax money... they just spent even more of our money.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
who ever said that "overtime" was a right?/..
lazs
oh just a little thing called
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 29 U.S. Code 207(a)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
oh... and didn't regans tax cuts bring in more taxes than ever before? we had more tax money... they just spent even more of our money.
lazs
Lol, what?? what are you smoking? And the legislation was to wipe out the 40 hour work week, not just for the upper bracket.
-
How does that work for contract or salaried employees? That act covers hourly workers doesn't it?
six... maybe I am wrong but I seem to recall seeing that more tax revenue was brought in during the Regan years than before?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
six... maybe I am wrong but I seem to recall seeing that more tax revenue was brought in during the Regan years than before?
lazs
No, read the links I posted.
"The result was the biggest tax cut in U.S. history: $1.8 trillion over the next nine years. But since Reagan also demanded an expensive military buildup, the federal government soon was heading for bankruptcy. Therefore, the biggest tax increase in U.S. history, $98 billion, had to be passed to try to curb the deficits. But it wasn't enough. Deficits soared, and the national debt quadrupled. "
You could say tax revenue increase after his mammoth tax increase, and alot of that was put on the working class.
" The Reagan tax cuts and military build up were approved by a Republican- controlled Senate and Democratically-controlled House. They did not deliver the promised utopia. Instead, President Reagan's river boat gamble clobbered the federal revenue base, and set off a chain of annual budget deficits unprecedented in American history. The supply side gambit is responsible in significant part -- say most honest analysts -- for an increase in the public debt since 1980, of some $3 trillion dollars"
-
sixpense... all I see is that revenues increased during his term. The fact that more was spent has nothing to do with it. Are you saying we should have higher taxes even tho it lowers revenue overall?
seems that cutting spending AND taxes would be a better way to do it.
I don't think adding more useless social programs and increasing spending and then gutting the military to pay for it is a particularly wise thing to do either.
also... seems that what people are calling Bush's "flip flops" are not him changing his position so much as not completeing all his tasks that he wanted to... kerry on the other hand... doesn't seem to have any fixed tasks or goals. he "flip flops" or "jap slaps" as you prefer.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sixpense... all I see is that revenues increased during his term. The fact that more was spent has nothing to do with it. Are you saying we should have higher taxes even tho it lowers revenue overall?
seems that cutting spending AND taxes would be a better way to do it.
I don't think adding more useless social programs and increasing spending and then gutting the military to pay for it is a particularly wise thing to do either.
also... seems that what people are calling Bush's "flip flops" are not him changing his position so much as not completeing all his tasks that he wanted to... kerry on the other hand... doesn't seem to have any fixed tasks or goals. he "flip flops" or "jap slaps" as you prefer.
lazs
some links, please.
Reagan era saw record deficits and record military spending. Reagan wanted a 600 ship Navy, for starters.
Clinton signed the Deficit Reduction Act, which Republicans said would ruin the economy. It didn't. We had the best economy since the 50's.
Then, if you remember, the day after the SC decision, European investers started pulling out of the stock market. Dot-com bubble burst and outsourcing became the order of the day.
not to hijack the thread, but small business is where the hiring and jobs are. Clinton said that back in 92 and its truer today. Ask anyone in an IBM town, a Kodak employee, or a Wal-Mart employee.
Here is food for thought - if Americans arent getting a living wage (and a full time WalMart cashier will qualify for foodstamps) - guess who makes up the difference? - the state and national governments - and we get the tab.
So if your prices are low because workers arent getting paid enough, you are still paying, just in a different way. ITs not complicated - the corporations will externalize all the costs they can. You and me pay one way or the other
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sixpense... all I see is that revenues increased during his term.
lazs
Where? You mean after his 98 billion dollar tax increase?
-
so you both admit that revenues were up during the Regan years but that spending, including military spending was up even more? Show me a link that gives the tax revenues for Regan and for carter.
I don't like the government to spend on anything but if we have to pay for something... the collapse of the Soviet Union and the threat it imposed was the most worthwhile spending any president has ever done since WWII or don't you guys recall living under the threat of the "cold war"?
Anyone working under the minimum wage is just starting out (for one reason or another) their wages will rise in a relatively short time if they work halfway decently. If a couple both have slightly better than or minimum wage jobs for a piddly 40 hours a week each they will make more than a living wage with a future that will be either ok, good or excellent depending on how they want to handle it. night school, overtime rising in the corporation they are in etc. or... just showing up every day on time.
What democrats want to do is reward having a baby out of wedlock at 17 by giving then the opportunity to move out of the house and have a government "section 8" house or apartment all of their own including food stamps, day care a car and free medical and dental... the only good thing is free schooling..
many girs look at getting pregnant as a way to "get out of the house"... a career move.
lazs
-
Originally posted by strk
Then, if you remember, the day after the SC decision, European investers started pulling out of the stock market. Dot-com bubble burst and outsourcing became the order of the day.
HAHHAHHHAAHHHAHHaaa - good one
u r joking right or is it fishing method whereas you slowly motor about with a couple of lines streaming behind ur boat ...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so you both admit that revenues were up during the Regan years but that spending, including military spending was up even more?
Ahhh, no, lol, did you read the links?
Show me a link that gives the tax revenues for Regan and for carter.
Would that be before or after the 98 billion dollar tax increase?
I don't like the government to spend on anything but if we have to pay for something... the collapse of the Soviet Union and the threat it imposed was the most worthwhile spending any president has ever done since WWII or don't you guys recall living under the threat of the "cold war"?
Communism collapsed the soviet union, not tax cuts to the wealthy and "trickle down" economics.
Anyone working under the minimum wage is just starting out (for one reason or another) their wages will rise in a relatively short time if they work halfway decently. If a couple both have slightly better than or minimum wage jobs for a piddly 40 hours a week each they will make more than a living wage with a future that will be either ok, good or excellent depending on how they want to handle it. night school, overtime rising in the corporation they are in etc. or... just showing up every day on time.
Sure, and we will soon work 80 hour weeks to do it.
What democrats want to do is reward having a baby out of wedlock at 17 by giving then the opportunity to move out of the house and have a government "section 8" house or apartment all of their own including food stamps, day care a car and free medical and dental
That has nothing to do with reaganomics, nice of you to throw it in there though
the only good thing is free schooling..
I agree, and the repubs are working on axing the pell grant. Do not be surprised if it happens.
-
sixpense... I am sorry but what part in your links showed that tax revenues were less during regans term than carters?
Communism collapsed the soviet Union? fair enough but it happened during Regans watch... Regan made em try to outspend us and they collapsed.
as for working 80 hours a week... sure, if you are a married couple just starting out you may need to have both people working till their lives/careers catch up.. longer if they wish to have a brand new suv, cell phones cable tv go out to eat a couple times a week... have a house that is larger than they need etc. Truth is... it is beyond rare for a couple to both work at minimum wage jobs and still be at minimum wage after a few years.... even Wall Mart (my daughter just started there) offers regular advancement as do fast food places and grocery stores etc.
it is a very bad idea to dangle a socialist housing, food and health care system in front of young girls with the only stipulation being that they get pregnant out of wedlock... Human nature being what it is. This may not have a lot to do with Reganomics except for the fact that spending on ending communism is infinetly preferable to destroying the family and punishing children by making it attractive for useless people to birth them.
The free schooling is mostly through private career schools for these women and is a good thing IMO. Some states make attendance mandatory for "benifiets" .
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sixpense... I am sorry but what part in your links showed that tax revenues were less during regans term than carters?
Like I said, is that before or after reagans 98 billion dollar tax increase? It was the largest tax increase in American history, so if you look after the increase, yeah, sure, revenue did increase.....by raising taxes!!
Communism collapsed the soviet Union? fair enough but it happened during Regans watch... Regan made em try to outspend us and they collapsed.
You can say the same about Carter then, the grain embargo made the soviet union spend more on their own agriculture so they wouldn't be dependent on foreign grain........and that wasn't it either.
as for working 80 hours a week... sure, if you are a married couple just starting out you may need to have both people working till their lives/careers catch up.. longer if they wish to have a brand new suv, cell phones cable tv go out to eat a couple times a week... have a house that is larger than they need etc. Truth is... it is beyond rare for a couple to both work at minimum wage jobs and still be at minimum wage after a few years.... even Wall Mart (my daughter just started there) offers regular advancement as do fast food places and grocery stores etc.
http://www.indiana.edu/~ocmhp/040904/text/workweek.shtml
it is a very bad idea to dangle a socialist housing, food and health care system in front of young girls with the only stipulation being that they get pregnant out of wedlock
I agree, but again, nothing to do with Reaganomics(trickle down)
The free schooling is mostly through private career schools for these women and is a good thing IMO. Some states make attendance mandatory for "benifiets".
The pell grant provides most of free education, and if you keep your grades up, can get you a great education, state programs do not come close to this. Education is key to a good job, we need to "teach them to fish" and they will feed themselves.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Flip flip flop flop flip flop flip.
Why are otherwise normal people chanting "flip flop"
There are normal people on this board? :D
-
sixpense.. I see nothing in the links you show that showed there was more tax revenue during carters years than there was after the Regan tax cuts and before the increase. It seems that the tax cuts increased tax revenue over the previous admin.
as for the 80 hour week... it is you who brought up that silliness. I was just showing you that it was false.
as for education... our socialist education system is failed. If you want people to have something useful you either have to be wealthy so that you can sit around in a badly taught school full of useless hours or... go to a private career school that is intensive and more in tune to what a person will actually need in his career. giving people money to waste on public education that teaches very little, takes forever and is toilet paper anyway in most cases is not the way to go.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sixpense.. I see nothing in the links you show that showed there was more tax revenue during carters years than there was after the Regan tax cuts and before the increase.
Then you didn't read the links
"Instead, President Reagan's river boat gamble clobbered the federal revenue base and set off a chain of annual budget deficits unprecedented in American history"
"The result was the biggest tax cut in U.S. history: $1.8 trillion over the next nine years. But since Reagan also demanded an expensive military buildup, the federal government soon was heading for bankruptcy. Therefore, the biggest tax increase in U.S. history, $98 billion, had to be passed to try to curb the deficits"
as for the 80 hour week... it is you who brought up that silliness. I was just showing you that it was false.
"According to a recent survey by Expedia.com, 63 percent of Americans work more than 40 hours a week, with some 40 percent exceeding the 50-hour a week mark. More than $21 billion dollars in vacation time goes unused annually (and back to employers!), as we spend 2.5 more weeks—and three months more—at work than do our Japanese and western European counterparts, respectively"
as for education... our socialist education system is failed.
So you are saying the pell grant has been a failure?
giving people money to waste on public education that teaches very little, takes forever and is toilet paper anyway in most cases is not the way to go.
ok, education is bad, got it:aok
-
sixpense... even the quotes you show talk about deficit... NOT revenue. what are the revenue numbers for carter and Regan? it seem simple enough. what you are quoting is pretty unfair. If you build up defense you will spend.
you said 80 hour week to survive.. what you point out is that if you want to be greedy and have a lot of toys you end up working more... not the same thing.
education... I did not say going to school was bad... I said our socialist worthless public schools were bad and pretty much a huge waste of time... private schools and career collage are good.
For instance... I don't have the right credits to get even an AA but I have maybe 80 units of schooling. My position demands it. Someone with a BS will probly not have anything that would make them more qualified... In fact... they would probly have less of what they neeeded... most 1 year private career schools tech more than any 2 or even 4 year public collage would teach.
pell grants may work for some rare individuals but for a lot of welfare recipeients they would be better off with a year of beauty school or a welding class or truck driving course.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sixpense... even the quotes you show talk about deficit... NOT revenue.
Lack of revenue= deficit.
what are the revenue numbers for carter and Regan? it seem simple enough.
Well, seeming you are the one who brought carter into this, you look at the numbers and you do the math.
Here is one for tax revenue, job growth under carter 3.1, under reagan, 2.1, In fact, if it would not have been for the 1.4 million government employees added during the Reagan years -- 183,000 of them federal employees -- his job creating performance would have been worse.
what you are quoting is pretty unfair. If you build up defense you will spend.
And if you give a 1.8 trillion dollar tax cut to the wealthy, you will lose revenue. The "trickle down" effect never happened, there was no revenue increase, what part of the numbers do you not understand? A tax increase of 98 billion dollars, an increase in the public debt , of some $3 trillion dollars, where do see this great revenue?
you said 80 hour week to survive.. what you point out is that if you want to be greedy and have a lot of toys you end up working more... not the same thing.
If you change labor laws so working people lose money, you have to work more to make the same amount of money to survive , what is so greedy about that? Consumer spending spins the wheels of the economic train, if you take money away from the consumer, you shoot yourself in the foot.
education... I did not say going to school was bad... I said our socialist worthless public schools
Now, the pubic school sysytem, a whole different ballgame to which Reagan actually had some good ideas. (http://www.cato.org/research/education/articles/reagan.html) Although I do not think the states have to go it alone, the money should not be spent on more government, but back into the schools.
private schools and career collage are good.
The last time I looked, the pell grant was not limited to public schools. And you do not receive money if you fail classes. And our state colleges are pretty good, I do not think they are worthless at all.
pell grants may work for some rare individuals
Pell grants work for alot of people, I believe Rip may have actually used a pell grant(but do not quote me, but I know he champions the grant, or at least shows you anyone can get an education and better themselves)
but for a lot of welfare recipeients they would be better off with a year of beauty school or a welding class or truck driving course.
Or an accounting class, or a tech class, or a computer programming class, etc. All those within reach with a pell grant, including what you mentioned above.
-
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?
How do you figure we have to work more to survive? I didn't have color tv and 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.
My work car was usually some wreck or junker that was a $50 or $100 dollar work car. I had a wife and one child and my wife didn't work.
Some had wifes that worked and they had two new cars and big houses and big TVs pools or pool tables even a slot machine maybe..
Women didn't make much in the work place so most didn't... they stayed home and raised the kids.
I agree that a technical school is a good thing to get people on the right track... public schools suck tho and are pretty much a waste of time... most will fail tho no matter what you give them... sometimes... simply because you do give them so much.
What I buy with my money now is much more than I could buy with it back in the 70's or 80's. If we could build 2 bedroom on bath homes of 1100 square feet with no frills... they would be affordable but... todays citizens wouldn't live in em. You can buy a car now that is brand new for $9,000 and comes with a 10 year warranty and you never have to do a thing to it... in fact... batteries and tires don't cost any more than they did in the 80's The payments are less than the payments on a low end car in the 80's all things considered...
we do less work for what we get paid too.. most people today don't have a clue as to what hard work is. It is easier now than any time in history.
lazs
-
six... I guess I am as guilty and as gullible as you are... you point to sites that claim that Regan gutted the tresury and this and that deficit.. and I go to sites that say that Regan cut taxes and that the cutting of taxes increased revenue....
Those appear to be opinions... neither side seems to be willing or able to provide the actual numbers to back their claims up in the search's I have done.
lazs
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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... :rolleyes:
BB
-
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
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sixpense.. no... you have shown me no numbers at all except deficit numbers.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/55_1083033689_tt.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/55_1083033689_tt.jpg)
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
-
But! But! uh... 911!!!!
Changed everything dude!
-
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
-
k lazs for the second time I aint getting worked up. Are you?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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".
-
well... now I see why you didn't want to show your source... "buzzflash.com" the banner add is for Deans new book and advertises to be "worse than watergate".
This site is a very political one with what appears to be very selective and.... suspect data. They give no source for their data so it is impossible to check.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... now I see why you didn't want to show your source... "buzzflash.com" the banner add is for Deans new book and advertises to be "worse than watergate".
This site is a very political one with what appears to be very selective and.... suspect data. They give no source for their data so it is impossible to check.
lazs
Show me your links or data disproving them.
-
we can play this game forever...
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
will give the opposite view for starters. Unlike your site tho it does site SOME sources other than the top of its head and microsoft excel.
I am saying that "buzzflash" doesn't seem very reputable and has no documentation or sources for it's missleading data.
Government sites are confusing and hard to navigate with no search engines or ways to get data pertenent to this discussion that I can tell..
soo... it appears that we are stuck with either believeing the left wing site you show or the right wing one I show.
lazs
-
http://www.presidentreagan.info/revenues.cfm
This site gives a matrix that explains the revenue by year of the Reagan years and the tax rate decreases or increases by year.
The source is the IRS so it is questionable.
lazs
-
Ahh, read your fine print on your graph, IRS and JEC calculations, not actual numbers. And does not include "revenue inhancers"
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.
Sure, but it was never used for that, he took the money and used it to fill in the holes in his budget, you got taxed!!, then had to get taxed again to pay for it!
You don't get it, when you put yourself in debt, you increase your tax burden.
That link is just talk, no numbers, no data, just a calculation
-
No... the cost of social security and medicare went up. If you have problems with paying for it then you can't blame Reagan.
If you don't like the fact that the money that is suppossed to be earmarked for social security and medicare is being spent on other social programs then I would put to you that more democrats voted to do so than Republicans... We either need to pay for the program or dump it.
The link I gave has the numbers for revenue and for tax cuts/increases during Regans terms... the source is the IRS.
your site has no source or numbers that I can see, just "percent change" of some nebulous "revenue hike" "spending hike". It doesn't explain where anything came from or went.
When we dig into it we find Regan tried to rescue social security and medicare. This was a mistake in my opinion... he shoulda let them fail but I don't think that would be possible in the U.S. or.... he coulda left em for the next guy to figure out a way to fund.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
No... the cost of social security and medicare went up. If you have problems with paying for it then you can't blame Reagan.
Yes I can, cause he did it w/o having to get Congress to approve it.
If you don't like the fact that the money that is suppossed to be earmarked for social security and medicare is being spent on other social programs then I would put to you that more democrats voted to do so than Republicans
The republicans held the power until 1986
We either need to pay for the program or dump it.
Amen, the budget he proposed was even bigger than he got, we would have had to borrow more money.
The link I gave has the numbers for revenue and for tax cuts/increases during Regans terms... the source is the IRS.
No it isn't, it's from the JEC
your site has no source or numbers that I can see, just "percent change" of some nebulous "revenue hike" "spending hike". It doesn't explain where anything came from or went.
it shows alot, you just don't want to know
When we dig into it we find Regan tried to rescue social security and medicare.
By quadrupling your payment, then stealing the money?
he coulda left em for the next guy to figure out a way to fund
That's what he did! Congress has since changed the laws so S.S. cannot be raided again. However, it has not addressed others(like the military retirement fund)
Cutting taxes is fine, but you must first pay off your debt and cut spending. If you cut taxes first and you increase spending, you force yourself to borrow and go deeper in debt, and increase your tax burden. Sometimes I wonder if they really want the debt paid off, seeming there is a killing being made on the interest paid on it. 30% of it being paid overseas, I believe this is our wealth leaving the country.
-
wait a minute... Regan didn't start social security or medicare. they were underfunded insurance programs that he had to pay for on his watch... if the programs could be "raided" then blame the people who set em up not Regan.... and.. to me, "raiding" means ... when people who never paid a dime into em are getting benifiets then the insurance is being "raided"
The numbers given are from the IRS according to the matrix. http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/tax_stats/
I still don't get any sources or real numbers from your site. It appears to be all made up or partial data.
Regan never claimed he was going to increase revenue only decrease taxes on middle class... which he did. The fact that taxes were so high and at the negative side of the "laffer" curve was why revenue incresed... if, congress had used this increase in revenue to decrease debt instead of finding more socialist programs to half fund we would have achieved your goal of reducing the debt.
The problem is... how do you cut off a giveaway prigram once the people have gotten a taste of "free" stuff?
The answer is to not start new socialist programs and to spend additioal time in researching the pros and cons of the ones we allready have so that we can eliminate as many as quickly as possibel.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
wait a minute... Regan didn't start social security or medicare. they were underfunded insurance programs that he had to pay for on his watch
Of course they were underfunded, he stole the money!!
if the programs could be "raided" then blame the people who set em up not Regan
So if a crook robs your house, I should blame you for having a house?
and.. to me, "raiding" means ... when people who never paid a dime into em are getting benifiets then the insurance is being "raided"
I have made that argument many times, S.S. for the retired only, that being said, he would have done the same thing. If he was really trying to save S.S., he would have changed it, not raid it.
Regan never claimed he was going to increase revenue only decrease taxes on middle class... which he did.
Then inacted "revenue inhancers' which offset the tax cut.
The fact that taxes were so high and at the negative side of the "laffer" curve was why revenue incresed... if, congress had used this increase in revenue to decrease debt instead of finding more socialist programs to half fund we would have achieved your goal of reducing the debt.
What are you talking about? It was his spending budget they approved, actually, what he wanted to spend was even higher.
The answer is to not start new socialist programs and to spend additioal time in researching the pros and cons of the ones we allready have so that we can eliminate as many as quickly as possibel.
The answer is not to increase spending period, then pay the debt, then cut taxes and spending.
-
Hold it... the democratic congress raided social security and medicare not Regan... He had no power to do so. The democrats also are the ones that set up those programs originally so that they could be "raided" by both your and my defenition of the term.
in the end... we do agree that spending has to be stopped first. I would add the caveat that emergency spending would be excluded but emergency would have to have very strict terms. J7ust doing that would probly result in being able to pay off the debt while at the same time decreasing taxes... decreasing taxes would still be a good idea if spending were frozen as taxes are too high now to stimulate growth.
if the rate of debt payment dropped because of decreased taxes then spending would have to be cut. social programs would need to be dropped.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Hold it... the democratic congress raided social security and medicare not Regan
republicans had control of congress until 1987
He had no power to do so.
He sure did, and the current president has hinted on trying to get his hands on it during war time or recession.
The democrats also are the ones that set up those program
To help you support yourself after retirement, and this is the thanks they get.
in the end... we do agree that spending has to be stopped first. I would add the caveat that emergency spending would be excluded but emergency would have to have very strict terms.
It's not the emergency, but how and where that money goes during the emergency that is the problem, we tend not to know exactly where the money is going during those times.
J7ust doing that would probly result in being able to pay off the debt while at the same time decreasing taxes
That's what I am trying to explain, by paying off the debt, we are decreasing taxes. Remember, a billion a day goes to pay the interest, that's our tax money. By lowering the payment, we lower our tax burden. We decrease spending.
decreasing taxes would still be a good idea if spending were frozen as taxes are too high now to stimulate growth.
Decreasing taxes is never a bad idea(albeit I would rather see most of it aimed at small business), but the debt is a tax consuming monster. If you cut spending w/o decreasing taxes, and that money is used to pay the debt, then what you are doing is actually reducing taxes. Once you have paid off the debt, we have now cut taxes by one billion a day. Then we can reduce taxes even more because we cut spending already and do not have the debt.
Here is some reading on the laffer curve. The math is kind of hard to follow, but you understand what they are saying. But I look at it this way, you show me a billionaire that doesn't want to make another billion because of taxes, i'll show you an idiot.
http://www.gmu.edu/jbc/fest/files/Monissen.htm
-
six.. no.. the democrats in congress voted to raid SS. And... so far as I know there is no way that any president can spend SS money now or ever on his own. He can suggest.
The democrats formed SS and they did a poor job.. they will get no thanks from me or anyone else trying rto live on it... No way is it a good way to use your hard earned retirement money. Being a government program all it's safeguards are moot. They can be voted away in a blink. It would be hard to get out of the mess that the democrats got us into over it tho now. Most of johnsons "great society" welfare is now considered human rights now too. Voting for democrats will only give us more of these types of programs. Socialism by anyones standards. No wonder they want the populace disarmed.... can you imagine how pissed the average person will be when (if) he figures it out? Believe me... the democrats can imagine it so... the sooner we are disarmed the better they will like it.
other than that we are reaching an agreement. High taxes are bad. deficet spending is bad at a certain point. I believe I understand the laffer curve even with my limited math ability. it is in one sense very simple and logical. If all you are concerned with is taxes and revenue from taxes it is probly fairly accurate.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
six.. no.. the democrats in congress voted to raid SS. And... so far as I know there is no way that any president can spend SS money now or ever on his own. He can suggest.
With Reagan wielding the veto pen in the White House, any budget standoff between House Democrats and Senate Republicans would have been tipped in the Republicans' favor. In other words, the GOP controlled two of the three bodies required to pass a budget. Therefore, Republicans dominated the budget process, and they deserve a larger share of responsibility for whatever deficits were passed on their watch.
The democrats formed SS and they did a poor job
Are you saying that no republicans had a hand in S.S.? Many republicans want to save S.S. Again, I could get into why S.S. is not working because of where it goes. I am told that immigrants come to this country and collect S.S., but I digress, w/o S.S. many would have to collect welfare, at least with it we set up a budget for it and you are putting money into it. I think you should have a choice to pay into it. If you don't, you do not collect. However, this could create a problem in the future is those who do not invest soundly end up broke at retirement. Then it is either welfare, or work til you drop dead. As a postal employee, you have FERS, they match you dollar for dollar up to 5% of your pay that you save and offer 3 investment options, no risk(low interest), low risk, and high risk(which keeps it's money in the S&P) This sounds much better than S.S. to me, although it would use tax dollars, it would give incentive to save by rewarding you for saving your own money.
ng a government program all it's safeguards are moot. They can be voted away in a blink.
Anything can be voted away if the voters do not pay attention.
t would be hard to get out of the mess that the democrats got us into over it tho now.
You can point fingers at who you want, there is plenty to go around with the blame pie, especially when a party ignores everything they preach and go along with careless spending because the president is in their party.
No wonder they want the populace disarmed
Do not fool yourself that it is only democrats. Here in Massachusetts, it is not as strict as you think. We had a law here that many on the right would like, if you got caught with an illegal handgun, you did a mandatory year in jail. Mandatory, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, jail. Now I will admit, it is tough to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun(you can get one if you have a clean record and have a need, like to protect a business), but shotguns and rifles? I think they sell them at walmart. We got drunk when were about 16, we took a shotgun from my friend's house(his older brothers hunted alot) and went down the marsh. Well, the gun jammed, so me and kenny turned to take a piss, BOOM!, we turn and they are both standing there...w/o the gun. They were both screwing around with it and it went off sending it flying off into the brush, took us about 20 min to find it, we wisely decided to bring the gun back. Another friend's dad was a taxidermist, he used to bring us to the marsh to shoot, we got in a little bit of trouble. People would use the marsh as a dump, unfortunately, but it provided lots of targets. We were blasting away, toilet bowl..BOOM!, washing maching..BOOM! Well, we didn't notice the game warden and state police walking up behind us. So don't be fooled, Massachusetts has it's share of gun wielding snapperheads. And we like having our guns. Now if they will just let us shoot the goose turding in the park, i'll be happy. I've been thinking of joining the NRA, seriously.
-
well.. i suppose we will just have to disagree with who got us into the SS mess but..
on the gun thing... all you have to do is look at the voting records of democrats and republicans on gun laws and you will see that democrats by a huge margin are for disarming America. You really should join the NRA because their magazine that you would get free of charge will give you info on who backs what bill and on voting records of politicians... They also rate politicans A through F on their stand on gun control... it is rare that a democrat ever gets better than a D. If keeping your 2nd rights is important to you then you shouldn't vote with the women.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I cannot find a copy of the bill, do you have one?
I would recommend reading it completely. The proposed plan is quite different from what is being said by liberal unions.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/proposed/2003033101.pdf