Limousine liberals:

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/05/31/4765/limousine-liberals-number-government-owned-limos-has-soared-under-obama

Change we can believe in ....

believer;787320 wrote:
True....we've over-regulated and taxed ourselves out of jobs the Chinese were all too glad to accommodate in their sweatshops of exploitation.

The paradox: We use Big Government and Big Labor to over-regulate, over-price, and tax good paying jobs out of existence. .

When will you stop repeating zombie lies and falsities.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

It is a NY Times blog but Bruce Bartlett is a Conservative and was a domestic policy adviser to great St. Reagan and worked in the Treasury department under Bush 41. You need to stop and your entire party needs to stop. Reasonable standards in the industrialized world does not equate to over-regulation when your competitors comparative advantage relies upon near slave labor. It'd be like saying that the NFC is over regulated if they had rules and referees while the AFC was no-holds barred and then they went head to head in the Super Bowl and the AFC champ could play by their rules while the NFC played by their reasonably civilized rules.

I mean damn. Bartlett was a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation in the 80's and damn near wrote the tax reform act of 1986 as well as the Kemp-Roth Act in 1981 which created Reagan's massive Tax Cut. He is a supply-sider through and through and...

IF HE THINKS TAXES ARE TOO LOW and you do not agree there will be no convincing you and it is sad because it makes me think more and more that Plato was right all along.

I mean the guy literally wrote the book on Reaganomics. Literally.

Bartlett, Bruce. Reagonomics, Arlington House (1981) ISBN 978-087000505

Like the White Queen in her youth, the contemporary Republican must be capable of believing as many as six impossible things before breakfast

See Arthur Laffer.

BoatShoes;787717 wrote:I mean damn. Bartlett was a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation in the 80's and damn near wrote the tax reform act of 1986 as well as the Kemp-Roth Act in 1981 which created Reagan's massive Tax Cut. He is a supply-sider through and through and...

IF HE THINKS TAXES ARE TOO LOW and you do not agree there will be no convincing you and it is sad because it makes me think more and more that Plato was right all along.

I've said this before and it's worth repeating: We do not have a tax revenue problem; we have a SPENDING problem. I'm all for a tax increase to balance the budget IF - and only if - any tax increase is guaranteed by law to be applied ONLY towards paying down the deficit. Every time and I mean EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME there's a tax increase it's simply license for our country's "leadership" to SPEND the increased revenues on more redundant, bloated, and inefficient government programs.

The contemporary Democrat must be capable of understanding this before drinking the Kool Aid.

Ok BoatShoes, let's simply look at the numbers.

In 2003, federal receipts were $1.782 trillion; they steadily grew at a more-than-adequate pace and last year were $2.162 trillion, up 21% during a period of low inflation.

On the other hand, outlays were $2.159 trillion in 2003, and have since swollen to $3.456 trillion, which equates to an astounding 60% increase in spending. And obama is in line to pile on even more spending in '11 - another $400b!!

You don't need to be a Rhodes Scholar or an economist at a Washington think tank to easily understand that we do not have a revenue problem, rather we have a massive spending problem.

If you cannot understand this, then there is absolutely no point in further discussion.


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

believer;787885 wrote:I've said this before and it's worth repeating: We do not have a tax revenue problem; we have a SPENDING problem. I'm all for a tax increase to balance the budget IF - and only if - any tax increase is guaranteed by law to be applied ONLY towards paying down the deficit. Every time and I mean EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME there's a tax increase it's simply license for our country's "leadership" to SPEND the increased revenues on more redundant, bloated, and inefficient government programs.

The contemporary Democrat must be capable of understanding this before drinking the Kool Aid.

I'd be fine with that. Why does no one propose it then? That in addition to spending cuts and smart reform of some programs would help a great deal. But no one will do that because Democrats won't want to cut the programs and Republicans start to cry if you even mention taxes.

I Wear Pants;787932 wrote:But no one will do that because Democrats won't want to cut the programs and Republicans start to cry if you even mention taxes.

That is the dilemma is it not?

However, I will say this...there is definitely a track record of ever increasing government spending even as we speak. When Dems and Repubs get serious about cutting spending and actually DO IT, then I think you'd see Republicans be a little more open to a reasonable tax increase as long as the additional tax revenues go to pay down debt, not fund more spending.

Unfortunately this country will go bankrupt before you'll ever see that happen.

believer;787885 wrote:I've said this before and it's worth repeating: We do not have a tax revenue problem; we have a SPENDING problem. I'm all for a tax increase to balance the budget IF - and only if - any tax increase is guaranteed by law to be applied ONLY towards paying down the deficit. Every time and I mean EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME there's a tax increase it's simply license for our country's "leadership" to SPEND the increased revenues on more redundant, bloated, and inefficient government programs.

The contemporary Democrat must be capable of understanding this before drinking the Kool Aid.

Thank you; it is either that or we make it a federal crime for any elected official to vote for any deficit spending, punishable by imprisonment........ that might wake them up.

QuakerOats;787940 wrote:Thank you; it is either that or we make it a federal crime for any elected official to vote for any deficit spending, punishable by imprisonment........ that might wake them up.

A little draconian but I like it.

QuakerOats;787940 wrote:Thank you; it is either that or we make it a federal crime for any elected official to vote for any deficit spending, punishable by imprisonment........ that might wake them up.

Only if additional tax cuts count as spending too.

And, just a little more ........ change we can believe in ....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43239586

QuakerOats;787863 wrote:See Arthur Laffer.

First of all this is silly because Arthur Laffer himself does not attribute the Laffer Curve to himself and it has been around since the ancient middle east. But, it doesn't matter either way because Arthur Laffers point only holds true if the effect of the tax base is on the right hand side of the curve (like it was in the early 80's before the Kemp-Roth Act) but Bartlett (Laffer's Colleague) and other Supply Siders don't think that the tax base is on the right side of the curve anymore. And either way, that only applies to income taxes because the theory is that a 100% tax rate takes away the incentive to work and not to wealth taxes.

believer;787948 wrote:A little draconian but I like it.

How dare you declare that Ronald Reagan and Thomas Jefferson deserve the life of a prisoner.

believer;787936 wrote:That is the dilemma is it not?

However, I will say this...there is definitely a track record of ever increasing government spending even as we speak. When Dems and Repubs get serious about cutting spending and actually DO IT, then I think you'd see Republicans be a little more open to a reasonable tax increase as long as the additional tax revenues go to pay down debt, not fund more spending.

Unfortunately this country will go bankrupt before you'll ever see that happen.

But what are you talking about? we raised taxes in the 90's and helped mitigate the debt problem that people were whining about in the wake of the deficits of the Reagan years. Your making up social programs that never came into existence. If anything, Conservatives use surpluses and low national debt to justify new tax cuts. See George W. Bush who warned famously that paying off the national debt would throw the markets into turmoil and that the tax dollars should be returned to the taxpayers (instead of paying off the debt) while Greenspan declared that the loss of revenue from the tax cuts must be offset with spending cuts (but we all know conservatives only care about spending when a democrat is in the white house)

And also, the democrats got their healthcare law. They got the social program they've wanted since Teddy Roosevelt. They've essentially gotten their holy grail which is going to cost less over the long term than the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, passed by republicans.

Your claim that liberals will come out of the woodwork demanding new entitlements is unfounded and without evidence but there is incredibly recent evidence of Republicans using strong tax revenues as an excuse to slash them and avoid paying down our debt and yet you make no mention of this...Your reasoning is not supported by empirical evidence but mere conjecture.

QuakerOats;787889 wrote:Ok BoatShoes, let's simply look at the numbers.

In 2003, federal receipts were $1.782 trillion; they steadily grew at a more-than-adequate pace and last year were $2.162 trillion, up 21% during a period of low inflation.

On the other hand, outlays were $2.159 trillion in 2003, and have since swollen to $3.456 trillion, which equates to an astounding 60% increase in spending. And obama is in line to pile on even more spending in '11 - another $400b!!

You don't need to be a Rhodes Scholar or an economist at a Washington think tank to easily understand that we do not have a revenue problem, rather we have a massive spending problem.

If you cannot understand this, then there is absolutely no point in further discussion.


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

What you don't understand is economics which the civilized world has known since before the birth of our Republic.

Frederic Bastiat, "What Is Seen and Not Seen," on the benefits of fiscal expansion and government employment of the unemployed in a recession:

There is an article in the Constitution which states: "Society assists and encourages the development of labor.... through the establishment by the state, the departments, and the municipalities, of appropriate public works to employ idle hands." As a temporary measure in a time of crisis, during a severe winter, this intervention on the part of the taxpayer could have good effects... as insurance. It... takes labor and wages from ordinary times and doles them out, at a loss it is true, in difficult times...

Jean-Baptiste Say, "Treatise on Political Economy," on the benefits of fiscal expansion and government employment of the unemployed in a recession::

[A] benevolent administration can appropriately make provision for the employment of supplanted or inactive labor in the construction of works of public utility at public expense, as in construction of canals, roads, churches, or the like...

Jean-Baptiste Say, "Complete Course of Political Economy," on how the key problem created by a trust crisis is not the harm it does to aggregate supply--not the disruption of the division of labor--but rather the lack of aggregate demand:

The Bank [of England]... forced the return of its banknotes... cease[d] to discount commercial bills. Provincial banks were... obliged to follow... commerce found itself deprived at a stroke of the advances on which it had counted, be it to create new businesses, or to give a lease of life to the old. As the bills that businessmen had discounted came to maturity, they were obliged to meet them, and finding no more advances from the bankers, each was forced to use up all the resources at his disposal. They sold goods for half what they had cost. Business assets could not be sold at any price. As every type of merchandise had sunk below its costs of production, a multitude of workers were without work. Many bankruptcies were declared among merchants and among bankers...

John Stuart Mill, "Essays on Some Unsettled Questions in Political Economy," on how at the root of high unemployment after a financial crisis is an excess demand for financial assets:

There can never, it is said, be a want of buyers for all commodities; because whoever offers a commodity for sale, desires to obtain a commodity in exchange for it, and is therefore a buyer by the mere fact of his being a seller. The sellers and the buyers, for all commodities taken together, must, by the metaphysical necessity of the case, be an exact equipoise to each other; and if there be more sellers than buyers of one thing, there must be more buyers than sellers for another.... If... we suppose that money is used, these propositions cease to be exactly true.... Although he who sells, really sells only to buy, he needs not buy at the same moment when he sells; and he does not therefore necessarily add to the immediate demand for one commodity when he adds to the supply of another....

In order to render the argument for the impossibility of an excess of all commodities applicable to the case in which a circulating medium is employed, money must itself be considered as a commodity.... [T]hose who have... affirmed that there was an excess of all commodities, never pretended that money was one of these commodities; they held that there was not an excess, but a deficiency of the circulating medium.... [P]ersons... from a general expectation of being called upon to meet sudden demands, liked better to possess money than any other commodity. Money, consequently, was in request, and all other commodities were in comparative disrepute.... [T]he result is that all [other] commodities fall in price or become unsaleable..


IT MAKES SENSE FOR BARRY TO RUN A LARGE DEFICIT TO TRY AND STIMULATE THE ECONOMY BUT UNFORTUNATELY REPUBLICANS WHO'VE STUMBLED UPON THE HETERODOX INCANTATIONS OF LUDWIG VON MISES ARE WINNING THE NATIONAL CONVERSATION WITH ZOMBIE LIES AND BHO DOESN'T HAVE THE POLITICAL WILL OR THE CAJONES TO DO WHAT IS REALLY NECESSARY SO WE GET HALF ASS DEFICIT SPENDING AND QUAKEROATS THINKING HE HAS A POINT WHEN HE REALLY IS JUST SHOWING HIS IGNORANCE OF THE DISMAL SCIENCE!

What you don't do is Run deficits in boom times and justify giving more money to the populace by saying "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" and then, when the government does need to borrow money on the full faith and credit of the United States to counter a massive. historical contraction in the business cycle....START COMPLAINING THAT WE HAVE A SPENDING problem and saying "everyone else is tightening our belt, so should the government Durr" when that is the exact opposite thing you should do and the exact opposite thing that your hero Ronald Reagan did.

Now please, stop.

Last few posts, Boatshoes should take Mark Twain's advice. Quakeroats is owning you. What the heck are you talking about?

BoatShoes;788316 wrote: There is an article in the Constitution which states: "Society assists and encourages the development of labor.... through the establishment by the state, the departments, and the municipalities, of appropriate public works to employ idle hands." As a temporary measure in a time of crisis, during a severe winter, this intervention on the part of the taxpayer could have good effects... as insurance. It... takes labor and wages from ordinary times and doles them out, at a loss it is true, in difficult times...

I hope you aren't talking about the US Constitution...because if you are then you are insanely incorrect. What Constitution are you talking about?

BoatShoes;788316 wrote: There is an article in the Constitution which states: "Society assists and encourages the development of labor.... through the establishment by the state, the departments, and the municipalities, of appropriate public works to employ idle hands." As a temporary measure in a time of crisis, during a severe winter, this intervention on the part of the taxpayer could have good effects... as insurance. It... takes labor and wages from ordinary times and doles them out, at a loss it is true, in difficult times...

No, what it does is transfer the responsibility to save from the individual to the taxpayer. What insurance company, any company, could operate at a continual loss? Oh, wait, we bailed them out, too. It should come out of your SS benefits, then those unfortunate enough to lose their job will have the good fortune of at least getting some SS benefit.

Manhattan Buckeye;788324 wrote:Last few posts, Boatshoes should take Mark Twain's advice. Quakeroats is owning you. What the heck are you talking about?

I was hoping you'd explain his rants for us, MB. If you can't decipher it, it's certainly beyond my understanding. The best I can figure is he's still trying to convince us that massive government porkulus spending coupled with large tax increases are the way to national salvation.

More failure ....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/03/obama-failed-foreclosure-relief-plan-jobs-crisis_n_870928.html?icid=main%7Chp-laptop%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C215067

Belly35;790551 wrote:More failure ....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/03/obama-failed-foreclosure-relief-plan-jobs-crisis_n_870928.html?icid=main%7Chp-laptop%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C215067

When a liberal think tank sees the problem and it's cited by the Huffington Post, you know there's a definite crisis in the midst.

When Belly links to the Huffington Post it is a sign of the apocalypse.

BoatShoes;788310 wrote:How dare you declare that Ronald Reagan and Thomas Jefferson deserve the life of a prisoner.

Wrong ...... neither had a vote on deficit spending

BS --- with respect to the 'state employing idle hands' ........ how does that work with respect to handouts, ala obama & co.?

And lastly, you know the nation is in trouble when you can be called ignorant for pointing out that revenue has indeed increased by 21% (despite the horrific Bush tax cuts), but spending has ballooned by a whopping 60% in the last several years, and that is ok and we should be applauding the nation's debt reaching $14 trillion. The lengths that some will go to in defending the marxists now in charge are stunning.