Re: About Obamacare and the need for it: I have heard people say it would make Healthcare costs cheaper.
That is all great, but how do you expect to decrease the cost when you have to an entire nation who is the most obese in the world? All those alcoholics and hardcore drug users too! This is not to be a prick or anything, but even if you include all of those people, it will put the squeeze on the elderly like this guy said in the video!
In the three and a half years since this video came out, you will notice that Republicans have been very consistent with their reasons to why things are fucked up (hint: Obama and the extreme leftist ideology). What do Democrats say? Bad Economy, Bush's Fault, those Evil Republicans "not working with us", and/or Obama needs another term(!) to fix this mess.
Ignorance run wild. "what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
I like this guy!!! I too with he could get this message out!!! This guy is really really smart and knows what he is talking about explains things very well!!!
They can't win on facts so they shift to "principal". "We're Christian" (but we hate blacks & gays & love war). We want "gov. out of our lives", yet we want gov. to tell women what to do with their bodies & want gov to tell people to pray @ school & decide what people can get married."
I know this clown is going to bar me again, so I'll post until he does. The GOP knows they can't win on facts. They took a good economy and crashed it. They took $1trillion in debt and turned it into $9trillion in debt (Reagan&Bushs), without a collapsed economy to fix. Icreased the gap between rich & midleclass more than anyone else. Education dropped to 37th in the word under them. They can't name ONE THING that was not made worse while they were in power.
The GOP cries about taxing the rich but $9trillion of the $14 trillion in debt was put there by Reagan and the Bushs. When they refuse to tax the wealthy what that means is our kids and grand kids will have to pick up the tab. When we lose the revenue by not taxing the rich that means we borrow from China to pay, which means our kids are the ones ultimately paying because it becomes their debt. This is how Reagan tripled the debt and Bush doubled the bebt.
Ever heard of a Lafer's curve? Study some economics and you will understand why taxes are inefficient and at some point lowering taxes brings more government revenue.
Reaganomics caused economical boom in 90s. The median wages almost doubled from 80s to mid 90s and why? Because both Bush Sr, and Clinton have continued Reagan's tax cuts policies.
Detroit is a quintessence of progressive/ lib policies. Democrats have been ruling the city for more than half of a century
@salihadjic -- What you are is technically called "brainwashed". You believe something that defies the laws of mathematics and you believe not because you've experienced it or seen it but because it's something you were told and you were gullible enough to fall for it.
When Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy lower than any other president in history there was no "increase in gov revenue". To make up for the lost tax revenue there was an "increase in BORROWING FROM CHINA"
@salihadjic -- It's no coincidence that along with Reagans unprecedented tax cuts came unprecedented borrowing and unprecedented debt. Reagan wrote the blueprint for borrowing from China and spending money we don't have. Reagan still stands as the only president to triple the national debt, and this is a direct result of the taxing policies of reaganomics.
HW Bush gave a pledge of "no new taxes" and he stuck to it for three years and finally he saw that it was raising teh debt too much....
@salihadjic - ...he saw taht it waas raising the debt too much and in his last year he went against the GOP and raised the tax rate for the wealthy.
Clinton kept the higher tax rate that HW Bush set in place his last year. This is why Clinto actually balanced the budget. This is why he didn't triple the debt like Reagan or double it like GW Bush.
What you need to start doing is your own independent research instead of being a brainwashed stooge, making statements you cannot backup.
In a short run taxcuts increase debt, in a long run they contribute to economic growth. Taxes cause deadweight loss, that is fact - in perfect society there will be no taxes.
Besides, you can't blame Reagan and Bush, they have just been trying to undo these all the mess FDR and LBJ have left after them.
There would have never been a debt after taxcuts if it wasn't for huge spending - SS, Medicare and other entitlement programs....
@salihadjic -- the only problem with your argument is you don't have a shred of evidence to back up the bullshit. We've got TWO presidents in American history that dished out that level of tax cuts to the wealthy. One was Reagan, who is the only predidnet to triple the debt and created no more jobs on a yearly basis than Carter and the other is GW Bush, who is the only president to doulble teh debt and has the lowest job creation record in history.
@salihadjic -- What I've given you is historical fact. If we were in court it would be called evidence....it's irrefutable. IF you want links to sources I can post them when I get home.
When I say you're brainwashed it's because you preach something that you don't have a shred of evidence to back up. We can see with our own eyes what happened when the GOP was in office. From 1980 to 2008 the Bushs and Reagan combined increasedd teh debt ten fold -- from $1trillion when Reagan took office to ...
I just told you why the debt increased. It increased because of the number of costly entitlement programs which are technically unconstitutional. Medicare and Social Security comprise a big part of the budget, if it weren't for those programs the taxes wouldn't have increased in the first place.
Cato Institute analysis shows that Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years;
whatever Clinton did he technically continued Reagan-Bush policies, because he did not introduce major (MAJOR) tax increases compared to gigantic tax cuts that Reagan made. Those policies were necessary, we wouldn't have seen America as it is if it weren't for Reagan era tax cuts.
Look at the numbers, look at how gdp grew from 80s up until the global recession. Never have US experienced such an economic growth, never. The theory says taxes are inefficient for the economy
@salihadjic -- You have proven yourself a political buffoon. You know absolutely nothing of political history or facts or data. You are one of the many mindless mouth pieces that listen to whatever they hear on am radio and Faux News then come into the real world repeating it and make idiots of yourselves.
I love and educated debated but obviously education, as it pertains to politics is missing here. I've wasted enough time with you as it is.
@salihadjic -- WTF are you talking about; Reagan taxed the corporations at 15%. Clinton doubled it, taxing them at 30%. And CLINTON had the largest economic expansion in American history, not Reagan.And when GW came in after Clinton he lowered them again to Reagan levels and the result was the lowest job creation record in history.
And Reagan, as I said, created no more jobs per year than Jimmy Carter. Thess are your too living examples of trickle down.
1986 Tax Reform Act by Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period. Still both Reagan's and Clinton's taxes were nowhere near that of FDR (even JFK and LBJ realized that such high taxes strangle economy). Clinton signed a major tax cuts in 1997 which caused the economy to blossom
Took you this long to look this up and copy and paste huh?...LOL
Copy and pasting is what rightwing stooges do best. – Ordinarily when I’m dealing with someone who’s proven they know nothing of political or historical fact I stop dealing with them, but sense I’m bored and can’t sleep, I’ll entertain myself.
You’re talking about taxes being raised in 1986. Reagan took office in 1980, which is the term in which he gave the ridiculously low corporate rates of 15%....
@salihadjic - He ‘increased’ the tax rate in 1986 specifically because the extremely low, unprecedented tax rate was killing the country. – thank you for proving my point. The same thing happened with HW Bush. He was a moderate but trying to please his party he promised “no new taxes”. He saw that the loss of revenue from way too low taxes was driving the country into the ground and running up the debt so in his last year he went back on his promise and raised taxes.
Your "historical facts" have proven to fail you again. Here is some more for you. After the tax cut of 1997 the first full year(98) in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again.
Please stick to web design, you are obviously clueless about economics and political science.
@salihadjic: 1997..1999??? Why are you quoting Clintons numbers? You just proved my point on your last post when you pointed out that Reagan had to increase the corporate tax rates now you’re using Clintons numbers for your argument…the democrat that “I’ve” been championing?? And a member of the party you claim can’t balance budgets. Who the hell taught you how to debate???Let me remind you what “YOUR” point is.
@salihadjic: Your ‘original’ point was GOP trickledown is better….even though every president that’s practiced it has either doubled or tripled the debt, had staggered job growth and all around messed the country up for the presidents coming behind them, which is why you’re quoting Clintons numbers and not one of those you claim to support...
@salihadjic: I find it hilarious that you use the term “common sense” a lot. I’ll tell you what common sense is. Common sense is when someone tells you something as fact it’s common sense to observe it to see if it’s true.
Once a theory is put into practice it’s no longer just a theory, it’s either a proven or disproven theory. Gravity was initially just a theory but after Isaac Newton “proved” his theory it became the law of gravity instead of the theory of gravity...
@salihadjic: That said; the trickle down theory has been tried….there’s no need at this point for text books and listening to brainwashed rightwing crackpot stooges. All we have to do is look at what happened when the theory was put into practical application. Between Gw Bush, HW Bush, and Reagan we’ve got 20 yrs. of practical app…..more than enough time for trickle down to bear its fruits. So what were the results?
@salihadjic: You say lower corporate taxes make companies hire yet GW Bush holds the record for lowest job creation in history. Reagan produced no more jobs per year than Jimmy Carter.
The social programs dems like are what drive up debt yet Reagan axed more programs than any other president yet still tripled the debt and to date is still the only president to ever do so.
@salihadjic: They like to deregulate business to so as not to choke business (according to them) yet it was fraud made possible by deregulation that is the main cause of the financial and housing collapse. In fact every major financial catastrophe you can think of happened on GOP watch, after GOP deregulation (S&L, ENRON, the current collapse).
@salihadjic: The national debt, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter never went above $1.5 trillion. However, the three trickle down presidents (HW Bush, GW Bush and Reagan) single handedly increased thr national debt TEN FOLD….from $1trillion in 1980 (Reagan) to $10 trillion in 2008 (Bush). These are the fruits of trickle down. This isn’t from four years or ten years, this is 20 friggin years, and this all they have to show for that debunked bullshit theory.
To the stooges I ask HOW LONG?? How friggin long are you going to sit there like a doof and keep saying “it’s going to work”?? Atleast the communists have China to help their argument for economic theories, it’s one of the strongest economies but the crackpot stooges have nothing. Not one president that’s practiced trickedown has left ‘anything’ for you to point to and say “there…it works”.
@salihadjic: All you can do is what you’ve been doing and that’s screw up the facts and hope the person you’re talking to doesn’t know history or politics or start quoting theories from a book that have already been debunked.
So in closing; if somethings been in play for twenty years and you don't have ONE existing example to 'prove' the bs you say it's capable of doing, only excuses why the other party is doing wonderful things, then "common sense" should tell you you're being made a fool.
@salihadjic -- ...so you argument is "ignore what happens in the real world, pay attention to what some nut wrote in a book"? Zat it?
If I wanted to buy a car you could tell me all day what the stats on the car are, but all I will really care about is how the car performs when I get behind the wheel. We see how trickedown performs, the same way we see how communism performs and fascism, and totalitarianism. They all had someone praising their systems as the best ever
@talan3000 The economy averaged 4.2 percent real growth per year from 1997 to 2000 a full % point higher than after1993 tax hike. Real wages grew at 6.5 %, which is much stronger than the 0.8 percent growth of the preceding period. Finally, total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose an astounding 95 percent. The period from 1997 to 2000 forms the memory of the booming 1990s, and it followed the passage of tax relief that was originally opposed by President Clinton
You really need to take economics class, because otherwise you are just wrongly interpreting historical facts
Clinton have been forced to balance budget by the Republican Congress and speaker Gingrich,
Please just for the sake of it, take a look at the economic theory, check for yourself how taxes, price caps and wage floors affect economy, check for yourself how did US government learned from its experience who payed for a luxury tax
@salihadjic -- The problem with the "Clinton was so successful because of the GOP congress" argument is that GW Bush had the same congress. Not just "A" GOP congress but "the same" GOP congress. SO you'd have to explain why that congress was able to "force" Clinton into balancing the budget and leaving a surplus, and then the same congress, with nothing changing but the president, followed with the greatest deficit and debt in American history.
@salihadjic -- ... Like I said; I gotta go. But as far a economics class. I personally don't believe you know the first thing about economics. I'm not doubting some rightwing economist wrote such theories - makes him about as right as Karl Marx, but still I dont' think YOU read any of it. YOu spit out the rightwing, "unsupported, unprovable" be too well . You're a blind, def and dumb stooge. Like I said...I gotta run.
@talan3000 You should keep in mind a long term growth. I can't argue with you successfully if you reject Economics as a theory. But if you do accept you should first study Macro and Microeconomics, otherwise it doesn't make sense for me to argue with you.
Every president of the US, every sane person who have ever studied economics knows that taxcuts attribute to overall economic growth. Now debt is a different topic, and i have mentioned number of times why we have such a deficit
@salihadjic -- You know what Sal: when I started dong web design there were a lot of things in the books that didn't apply when I was in the real world doing it. In fact, they say on paper a bumble isn't supposed to be able to fly according to the laws of aero dynamics.
But if in the real world I see a bumble bee flying and if in the real world there are things i deal with building websites that contradict what I read in a book, then which do I accept as reality...the book or real life?
@salihadjic -- And then you look at the source of the book. Who wrote it, why? There are many books written on Marxism and Communism. It reads real well. Says if you go by it no one will go hungry and the country will flourish --- but it don't quite happen like that in real life now does it? Just like this trickle down bs. Theres not one comunnist country thats thriving just like theres not one trickledown president thats not greatly increased the debt or balanced a budget.
@salihadjic -- to $10 trillion when GW Bush left office. The only democrat in the white house during that time span was Clinton and he balanced the budget and didn't; adda trillion to the debt. The GOP single handedly increased the debt ten times over. Look teh shit up if you can read.
And since there's been no prosperous GOP administration since Reagan, no balanced budget, doubling and tripling of debt, minimal job creation, they decide to tell their feeble minded stooges "We're the reason...
@salihadjic -- ..."we're the reason the dems do so well".
Look dude; when Bush started screwing up the country the results were immediate. The economy went down and stayed down. he never created more than 3000,000 in a year.
His Community Re-Investment Act caused the housing bubble but it burst during his second term. It doesn't take a decade or two, it takes generally two to six years to see teh results of a presidents policies, depending on the policy.
@salihadjic -- It didn't take ten years for the unpaid for Iraq war to destroy the surplus Clinton left, it just took two years. The changes Reagan made to squash inflation didn't take decades for the results, they saw them while he was president.
And before you post up anymore rightwing crackpot lunacy please have soem historical data to back it up or some "credible" links, because nothing you've posted is supported by anything.
There is nothing wrong with a debt when it is in reasonable numbers, like under Reagan, today, however, we pay a big amount in interest, our debt is at least 10 times more than that of Reagan or Bush Sr. times.
You are totally clueless
Ever heard of 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates?
@salihadjic: "There is nothing wrong with a debt when it is in reasonable numbers, like under Reagan".
Reagan took the debt from $1 trillion to nearly $3 trillion. He practically tripled it and you say there was nothing wrong with it? What world do you live in?? The debt was not tripled during WWI nor WWII, nor during FDR's New Deal, nor Vietnam. Are you actually reading what you're posting??
@talan3000 You are running in circles. I have already explained you a long run and short run effects. You keep digging up some questionable data and keep misinterpreting it. If you look closely into history, you will find out that Roosevelt led them all at Gross Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP, OVER 120% HISTORICAL!!! thank New Deal etc. Reagan hardly went over 60%
Democrat Wilson was the one who created a debt ceiling (Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917)
@salihadjic: What you’ve explained is what I’ve already pointed out – you don’t know jack about what you’re talking about. Oh, you know the rightwing dogma about supply-side economics, which I didn’t prove flawed but history proved flawed. You’re like a man who buys a car that doesn’t work and he sits there and keeps rereading the manual and everybody can see it doesn’t work but you keep responding, “but the manual says it does”.
@salihadjic: And the guy that sold it to you keeps blowing smoke up your butt about how it really works but you gotta look at it from another angle. Meanwhile you’re still sitting in a ditch, going nowhere, believing him.
@salihadjic: Tell you what genius; take a look at this website -- bunkinthewest-dot-wordpress-dot-com/2008/09/04/republican-democrats-national-debt-and-fiscal-responsibility/ -- This was posted by a girl that grew up as a conservative but had sense enough to do a little independent research when she grew up and came to her own enlightened opinion. Everything she posted is backed up by credible links and factual history.
Is this a website that you have designed doing your 'webdesign' job? If you suck at that as much as you suck at debating and interpreting the facts and statistics then I'd rather avoid this site.
To be serious, what you have said is ridiculous. I have a degree in economics (currently work on my masters) and you expect me to throw out the whole science because of your sentiMENTAL story about some non-existing "conservative" closet socialist girl that have finally came out?
@salihadjic: Your quote, “If you suck at that as much as you suck at debating and interpreting the facts and statistics …”. The thing about facts genius is that they need no interpretation…either they exist or they don’t. Either two plus two equals four or it doesn’t. That’s the problem with you rightwing stooges - you ingest so many lies, so often, from your puppet masters that you no longer know the difference between a fact and an opinion or a fact and a theory.
@salihadjic: And if you truly are an economics student (which based on your statements I sincerely doubt) but if you are you are the dumbest one I’ve ever seen and I’ll tell you why. This is you again, “you expect me to throw out the whole science because of your sentiMENTAL story about some non-existing "conservative" closet socialist girl that have finally came out”. Here again; there is a difference between a “science”, which you THINK you’ve learned anda “theory”, which you HAVE learned.
@salihadjic: If youd’ve taken formal classes you’d know this. You’d know that what you’ve been spewing is not “economics”, but ‘one theory’ of economics and the theory you didn’t even name because you probably don’t know the term for it but it’s technically called “supply-side” economics, commonly known as “trickle down”. According to your posts this is all you’ve learned of economics, which is why you think it’s a science.
@salihadjic: Aside from the supply-side ‘theory’ there’s Keynesian economics, Oligarchic economics, Plutocracies, but the only thing you have a clue about is the one you learned about in a book you probably borrowed from a friend. If you ARE a student then A) you need to upgrade from the classes in your mothers basement or B) you should switch majors from economics to home economics….that just might be something you can grasp.
Your delusions and naivety are astonishing. I am not telling you this to educate you or to try to patronize you or something, but please, do yourself a favor and take few basic economics classes. They all teach historical examples and you will learn to make valid inferences. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to even argue with you; you just keep spewing your partisan nonsense. It is not about politics.
@salihadjic: Yea, they have have "historical examples", that you as a 'student' can't bring yourself to reference....yea, ok student.
And you say it's not about politics when you're the one that said dems don't like balanced budgets, which I had you show you who actually is balancing budgets and who's not. You also wrongly attempted to credit Clintons success to the very congress thats responsible for supporting Bush in crashing the economy. That too, I had to get you straight on the truth.
@salihadjic:...so please kill the "it's not about politcs bs. One term you used I found very interesting though -- “Delusions”; it means - An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is factual reality. “FIRMLY MAINTAINED DESPITE BEING CONTRADICTED BY WHAT IS FACTUAL REALITY”….sound familiar??Sali “firmly maintains” that trickle down and the rightwing are better for the economy despite being contradicted by these “factual realities”:
@salihadjic: The last three presidents to balance the budget were all dems (Clinton, LBJ Kennedy).
No GOP president has balanced a budget in over fifty years (Eisenhower)
In twenty years three GOP presidents increased the national debt ten times over from $1trillion when Reagan took office to $10 trillion in 2008 when Bush left office (Reagan, HW Bush, GW Bush)
@salihadjic: GW Bush enacted the extreme tax cuts to the wealthy for 8yrs, which according to the trickle down “delusion” should have given him the highest or one of the highest job creation rates but he instead holds the lowest job creation rate in history.
With trickle down Reagan created no more jobs per year than Jimmy Carter.
The Bush tax cuts the GOP forced Obama to sign will add $7 billion to the debt without creating one job (source, CBO)
@salihadjic: Entitlement programs are responsible for the debt yet Reagan who got rid of more of them than anyone else never balanced a budget and tripled the national debt. Clinton who A) maintained a corporate tax rate double that of Reagan and B) Implemented major “entitlement” programs, balanced the budget and left a surplus.
Where did you get that Clinton doubled reagan's corporate tax??? Are you kidding me ? Corporate tax is not a number, we have a progressive corporate tax.
Reagan lowered the lowest bracket from 16% to 15 % and it stayed till these days (through Clinton, Bush, Obama presidency).
While the top bracket was 46%, Reagan lowered it to 40%, Bush lowered it to 34%, Clinton didn't change much, just raised it to 35% still much lower than under Reagan
@salihadjic: You’ve got a BS in economics alright, but the BS is not for Bachelor of Science, it’s for BULLSHIT. The only economics class you’ve had is here on this thread and I was glad to teach you. Look at what we’ve learned.
1) You originally said a GOP congress was responsible for Clintons success. - tried to backpeddle later after I proved you wrong but was proven wrong none-the-less.
@salihadjic: 2)Oddly, you also tried to give credit to Reagan for Clintons success and then even some 1997 tax reduction Clinton did 3) but I proved both wrong
4) You claimed dems “don’t like balanced budgets” but I proved that dem administrations have been the only ones with balanced budgets since Eisenhower.
5) you thought economic policies took decades to show effects but then proved ‘yourself’ wrong once again.
@salihadjic: I really hope that you are done because I have a lot better things to do than sit here and give you free lessons on economics. Now go to your old teacher, who is probably on am radio and tell him to stop giving you information that makes you look like an idiot.
Free lessons? Hah, your "wikipedia economics lessons" are worthless.
You lost your last shred of credibility when claimed that Clinton doubled the corporate tax. I didn't even read all the bullshit you typed because chances are validity of your claims pretty much equals to that of your corporate tax knowledge.
Now i am starting to doubt you even got a GED. (personally i am sure all that is not even worth reading)
As i've said, stick to webdesign, or whatever piss you do
@salihadjic: LOL...yea, if I were you I wouldn't want to read it either. Practically everything you posted has been thoroughly proven to be 100% grade A BULLSHIT. You been had. The thing is; the republicans know it's bullshit, they just do the trickle down game to keep money in their rich friends pockets...they know it doesn't help the overall economy. We can go back to my very first comments, which were, "if lower taxes increase jobs and revenue why did Bush....
@salihadjic:...why did Bush, the only president to implement those ridiculous tax codes for eight years, not have the largest job creation or close to it or even in the ranking. Why didn't Reagan have the best numbers or close to it since they slashed taxes more than anyone else? But Bush has the worst job creation numbers of all and Reagans numbers aren't stellar. Somewhere down the line you gotta use common sense and deductive reasoning.
@salihadjic: Yea, the GOP knows they're not helping the economy nor the brainwashed stooges that support them, but they have to tell you lies to keep your support so they can keep screwing you over and like an abused kid you're more than willing to keep allowing them to stick it to you.
@salihadjic: And if I lost credibility over one tax claim. And I'll pretend you were right on that and I was wrong for arguments sake. If that ONE discrepancy cancelled my credibility, which one of the fifteen or so inaccuracies and inconsistencies that you posted all over this thread cancelled yours??
Either you intentionally distorted the facts taking the lower bracket of Regan's corporate tax and comparing it to Clinton's upper bracket, or you just a moron. In both cases you do not deserve credibility because: 1) liar doesn't deserve any credibility, 2) moron does not deserve credibility either.
@salihadjic: Are you kidding me??? The imbecile that doesn’t know the difference between economics and an economic theory, didn’t even know that different theories existed, didn’t know the term for the theory he was quoting and didn’t even know it was a theory at all. - Have been proven wrong about practically everything your sorry ass has posted.
@salihadjic: I’ve listed atleast ten of your bumbling, dullwitted mistakes and there’s “atleast” another five I casually came across that I didn’t bother to mention because you’re too pathetic to waste anymore time or energy on. And as dumb and misinformed and blatantly ignorant as you are you STILL make a lame attempt to past yourself off as an economy major.
@salihadjic: A doof that doesn’t know the difference between the fundamentals of an economy and economic theory is about the equivalent of someone claiming to be a math major not knowing the difference between multiplication and addition…laughable. And it’s stunning that after being outted for the lying goofball that you are, after all your bullshit, know-it-all talk you still have the gal to still post anything here at all.
@salihadjic: Atleast come clean and say “I’ve never been nor am I smart enough to ever be an economics student”…can you do that? And admit, “I was fooled by my rightwing puppet masters. They told me all the bs I’ve been posting and I was gullible enough to believe it and too stupid to do any independent research before I made a jackass of myself in front of the world.”
@talan3000 How else would you call someone who really believes that the corporate tax could be doubled without serious consequences on economy - a moron. Even if you have been misled by the false information (apparently from BSnbs, or was it msnbc) you should have used your own brain to evaluate whether the information is at least plausible. Well it isn't, and it turned out to be false.
You could also chose to be a compulsive liar. As i have said, you got no credibility
@salihadjic - I was done here but I just had a video link sent to my email and I had to share the info. Its pointing out the fact that the "CAPITAL GAINS" tax, which is the tax I was talking about that Bush slashed in half was 28% under Clinton and Bush "slashed" it to 15%. If you understand math thats practically "half". So the one one little piece here you had clung to that you thought you were right about turns out to be wrong too......damn. LOL
You are wrong again, because the Capital gains tax is progressive as well, which means it couldn't be just one number. (Mistake number 1)
(Mistake number 2) Yes it did went under down under Bush, but does it mean Bush was the one "slashing" it? No. Guess why it went down under Bush? The taxpayer relief act of 1997 (signed by Bill Clinton) which provided that the rate would drop to 8 percent in 2001 and then to 18 in 2006. (by brackets)
@salihadjic: ...and the info came from a guy named Bruce Bartlet. He worked in both the Reagan and HW Bush administrations. I can send you the link if you want.
Oh come on... You just don't know how get yourself out of this so you think you'd better attack me. You obviously screwed up, and that puts everything you have said in question. That was an obvious attempt to distort the truth, after that you'd better be quiet about reliability of different news sources. However, If you weren't distorting the truth then you are just not intelligent enough to discuss economics or politics, for you can't evaluate the plausibility of a claim
Get out of what?? There’s nothing for ME to get out of Doofus. I’m not the one sitting here claiming to be a economics major but don’t know the difference between economic fundamentals and economic theory. But lets address the tax issue. The point was that Clinton keeping the taxes at a higher rate is the reason he didn’t raise the debt like Reagan and Bush did. That’s the point and that’s a proven fact.
@salihadjic: When I told your dumbass that the don’t tax don’t spend bs you were spewing was “supply-side” rightwing bullshit theory your ignorant ass told me atleast three times it was “economic science”…”fundamentals that all economists agree upon”. In fact you called me a “lackwit”. Told me I should “take economic classes”. Well tell me doofus; what economics classes did YOU take??
@salihadjic: Who gave you a Bachelors of Science in Economics when your dumb ass didn’t know the difference between economic science and economic principals?? Like I said; it’s the equivalent of claiming to be a math major and not knowing the difference between multiplication and addition. I know you’re not an economics student, anyone that reads these posts knows you’re not an economics student, I’m just wondering if YOU really think you’re a student.
@salihadjic: You’re a cartoon character. You’re like Barney Fife on the Andy Griffith show. He’s a deputy that thinks he’s Gods gift to law enforcement but screws up everything he touches. He has a gun and one bullet he keeps in his pocket and everybody knows he’s a screwup but him….LOL. I’ll bet you watch a few war movies, got to the army surplus and buy some camouflage utilities and come out pretending to be a Marine too huh??...LOL
@salihadjic: I’m going to list a few of your highlights once again:
You came out arguing lower taxes are better, then to support your argument you copy and paste information about Reagan “raising” taxes in 1986 – thank you for making my point. You first claimed policy takes decades to see the results…claimed Reagan was responsible for Clintons economic success, then after I proved you a completely clueless buffoon on that you changed it and later said...
@salihadjic: ...Clinton caused the nineties boom with legislation he signed in 97’. This was funny for two reasons, A) you proved yourself wrong (again) with your own comments about policies taking decades to show effects and B) and this is the real killer; you actually think a bill signed in ’97, that in your pasted info says it didn’t come into full effect until ’98 is what caused the nineties boom.
@salihadjic: And I’ll bet you right now you don’t even know WHY this is so ridiculous. The thing is brainiac; the nineties is a ten years span but if this bill came into full effect in ’98 that’s only two friggin years. Not only do you not have common sense you can’t add.You said entitlements were the cause of the debt yet LBJ, who signed ‘many’ entitlements into law is one of the few presidents this century who had a balanced budget and he didn’t run up the debt.
@salihadjic:Clinton also had many entitlements but he also not only balanced the budget but had best economy ever. While Reagan; who got rid of more entitlements than any other president, didn’t balance budget and tripled the debt.
I asked you to show me where the trickle down theory worked in real life and you quote Clintons numbers. – thanks for proving my point AGAIN.
@salihadjic: This is you talking shit again - “Every president of the US, every sane person who have ever studied economics knows that taxcuts attribute to overall economic growth. Now debt is a different topic, and i have mentioned number of times why we have such a deficit”.
Ok, I’ve already pummeled you to death with history and with the quoted definition of economics as it pertains to tax cuts, exposing how idiotic the part about taxes was.
@salihadjic: But about the debt; the CBO has stated that the Bush tax cuts added over $700 billion to Bushs debt. They also said the extension of those tax cuts Obama was forced to sign will add $7 billion to the current debt.
@salihadjic: I’m just floored at how much raw lunacy you’ve posted here…it’s endless. I really have to cut off here or I’ll be calling out your discrepancies all day. Everytime I go back over the post theres something else that’s just plain retarded. I am officially done here. Have a happy life, or imaginary life. Maybe you can get a rocket science degree from the same school that gave you the economics degree.
@salihadjic: Quick correction; the CBO said extending the Bush tax cuts would add $2 billion to the debt I think, not the $7 billion I posted so Barney Fife here doesn't have a heart attack, even though the amount is not the point but the fact his dumb ass was wrong about tax cuts not adding to the debt.
Next time when you are having an argument with somebody, either make sure that the person is dumber than you (which i am sure will be a tough thing to do ), or at least prepare so you won't get embarrassed.
I want you to understand that i wasn't the one who discredited you. Conversely, i made an attempt to read all the bullshit you have been spewing and even tried to familiarize you with few basic economical principles...
@talan3000 yes, the very basic general principles: taxes, price floors and ceiling, unemployment. However when i mentioned the Lafer's curve you found it necessary to copy paste wikipidia here in order to demonstrate your "knowledge" of the supply side economics, which wasn't very smart.
But then you made a fool of yourself falsifying the facts on corporate tax, claiming that Clinton's corporate tax was a double of that of Reagan, which was a bold face lie. Reagan's corporate..
@salihadjic: I tried to explain to you a number of times that what you were quoting was not economics but a debunked economic “theory” called supply-side economics. I was honestly surprised that you not only didn’t know this but hadn’t even heard of “supply-side” economics, especially sense that’s what you were reciting. You called me a “lackwit” for telling you you were quoting supply-side “theory” - told me I needed to take classes.
@salihadjic: Once I saw that you didn’t know shit, I mean not even the basic fundamentals of what you were talking about is when I copied and pasted the definitions so your ignorant ass could see just how blatantly misinformed you’d been.
@salihadjic: One more time about the tax rate I mentioned - As I’ve already said; The tax rate I quoted isn’t the point. The point was (for the second time) raising taxes is what kept Clinton from mounting debt like Bush and Reagan – the “amount” is irrelevant. I’ll make this as simple as I can for you because it’s pain that you’re a simple person....
@salihadjic: If you killed someone with cyanide, which takes a 1/2 oz to kill, and I, as prosecutor, tells the judge you gave him 8oz. of cyanide. And if your defense is, “I didn’t give him 8oz of cyanide, I gave him 2 oz.”. Guess what genius; your dumb ass is still going to prison because it don’t matter HOW MUCH cyanide was used, the point is cyanide killed him.
@salihadjic: That relates here because it is a tax hike that kept Clinton from the mounted debt of Reagan. So the point here is; the only way you can win this argument is to prove A) Clinton didn’t raise Reagan era taxes at all or B) prove he lowered them. But that would be kind of hard seeing that I just posted the information that he increased them. So as I said before; if your argument is Clinton only increased them by two cents, you still prove my point.
@talan3000 You were talking about Clinton DOUBLING Reagan's corporate tax rate. You claimed it was 15% and Clinton turned it to 35%,The truth is Clinton raised corporate tax by 1% compared to Bush Sr. (34%), yet his tax was much LOWER compared to Reagan's.Raising corporate tax by only 1% was equivalent to agreeing to Reagn-Bush era taxcuts, for he did not pull it back even to Reagan era corporate tax - 40%.
You have failed there big time, and you are delusional for not admitting that
@salihadjic: Ok, I'll try to be civil, I'll lay off the language (for now...truce declared). I'll repost a quote I posted earlier, "Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which, among other changes, lowered the highest marginal tax rate from 50-28%, and reduced the corporate tax rate." The 1986 tax rate (that you mentioned earlier) was set at 28%....
@salihadjic: In 1993, the CLINTON ADMINITRATION repealed some of the Reagan tax cuts with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which tacked on 36% and 39.6% marginal tax rates for individuals and a 35% rate for corporations.
@salihadjic: Yea, as I stated earlier; Bush I made a pledge of "no new taxes", and he kept it until he saw it was driving up the debt and wasn't creating any jobs and he went back on that promise toward the end of his term and Clinton did keep the rates near where Bush raised them to.
@salihadjic: Again and again you keep losing the point...or ignoring it. My original postings, that you made answer to, was that the rightwing supply-side presidents, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, doubled and tripled or otherwise added trillions to the debt, and had meager to abysmal job creation ratings.
The link I posted, that you refused to look at gave explicit, historically proven, detail of the comparisons between democrat and republican presidents.
@salihadjic: You sighted one year or two years that they may have had a pike. We're not looking at half a term or one year. We're looking at a president by his term and how he effected this country and Reagan and every republican president since him have done nothing but create debt.
You are missing the point. If Clinton haven't rolled back Reagan era taxcuts, that only means he politically agreed with them. As i have demonstrated the average corporate taxrate during Reagan administration is higher, compared to that of Clinton's. The same thing here with an average INCOME tax rate.
Reagan's tax cuts were essential for economic growth and that does not need to have anything to do with supply side economics and Lafer's curve.
@salihadjic: Tell you what; when you can name a GOP president that balanced a budget within the last fifty years, when you can find a GOP president that can match the jobs Clinton produced, that didn't double or triple or add an excess of a trillion to the debt, without a world war and without an major catastrophes, then I'll deal with you.
Again, i'm reminding you that you have admitted that debt during his presidency era is due to the entitlement programs. If you could get to cut the taxes AND cut the entitlement programs then there will be no debt. But that was impossible during Reagan, Bush and W Bush eras thanks to Democrat majority congress that has a habit of turning tax cuts policies against politicians advocating them, with their class warfare.
@talan3000 that is one of the basic economic principles. If you draw a supply/ demand graph and put a tax wedge in it, you will obviously see that the market has shrunk, total surplus (both consumer and producer's) decreased - that is NOT supply side economics. You do not even have to look at the long run and Lafer/Hayek's theories - those are the instant short run consequences .
As for debt, you admitted yourself that it mostly attributed to entitlement programs of New Deal, GS era
@salihadjic: This is my last time posting here. Did'nt know I was literally dealing with a retard. Told your dumb ass that the presidents with the most entitlement programs (Clinton, LBJ) DIDN'T add to the debt, and they BALANCED THEIR BUDGETS. Reagan got rid of more entitlements than anybody yet tripled the debt and didn't come close to balancing a budget. but please...stay in your fantasy wingnut world
@salihadjic: I just posted this somewhere else but I'll post it here too. It was the Capital gains tax I was refering to.which was 28% under Clinton and cut to 15% under Bush (HALF)...not sure what it was under Reagan.
So my mistake was saying Reagan when I should have said Bush but either way my point is still proven.
here is some info, so you could finally get that our tax system is not flat, but progressive (i like that you call it flat though, i wish it were flat)
taxfoundation . org/taxdata/show/2088 . html - capital gains from '88 t0 '13 - you can browse the site, kid, and find some data on other taxes
BTW, what Clinton did with Capital gains, was a great idea, it would have increased investments.. Too bad the Global Economic crisis ruined the thing
I intended to have a civil conversation, but you are, as most lib-progressives, uncivilized, unintelligent and ignorant. I always figured that words like "shit" or "ass" are not appropriate for economical/political argument, but being a halfwit low life you probably used to having such diatribes.
As i have said, you have discredited yourself when falsified the information trying to pass the lower bracket as Reagan era tax rate. I bet you didn't even know that we have a ..
@salihadjic: We deal with 'intelligent' debate accordingly. But if it turns out theirs a bufoon on the other end of the debate, that knows nothing but rightwing propaganda, who ignore and or avoid 'real' information, then we treat them accordingly.
@talan3000 ...progressive corporate tax system. You thought that one number defines the corporate tax (flat tax rate). You should be thankful that i am teaching you all this.
However you, kid are very disrespectful. Speaking about "ass", i would kick yours for being such an ungrateful sleazebag.
I did, in fact, prove both of those points.
A and B
Compare an average corporate and individual income tax rates during Reagan and Clinton administration and you will admit that you are dumb
@salihadjic: like I said; numbers are debatable. I got mine from the CBO and you got yours from a wingnut website. So as I've already posted; look at the totality of the administrations...who created the most jobs, who balanced budgets, who created debt, who collapsed the economy, whos legislation was responsible for and who was in office during every major financial catastrophe. I'm done here, can't believe I spent this much time screwin around with a brainwashed nut.
@talan3000 During first 5 years of Reagan presidency the corporate tax(for the top bracket) was 46%, the last 3 years it was 40%; 34% and 34% - makes aprox 42.25% on average.
Lets looks at Clinton's era. He raised corporate tax from 34% to 35% (for the top bracket) and it stayed unchanged for whole 8 years.
What is more 42.25% or 35%? I'll help you with the math - 42.25% is more.
Here is a homework for you: calculate the averages for the top income bracket (clinton vs regan)
@salihadjic: Damn you're dense as shit. Did you read the quote I posted. It specifically shows what the tax rates of both were you idiot. Can't fuck with you anymore Barney Fife. You're being blocked as spam. Good luck in your imaginary world as an economy major. Let me know when they give you a rocket science degree, and wings, and a laser gun.
@talan3000 Was i supposed to consider that quote without an author or a reference, moron?
you are only capable of talking dirty from your mama's home, i really doubt you would say any of that to my face, kid. Of course, hide your head in the sand, like a jackass - oh is that a symbol of Democrats. Keep hiding from the truth,
@talan3000 You know you screwed up and you know i am not reading any of the bullshit you are spewing here, so don't waste your time. (i have made it clear with all the numbers, on average throughout the Clinton and Regan presidencies. So be a man (woman) and admit that you have failed )
Regarding the debt, again no president could compete with FDR by Debt as a % of GDP.
Also, about saying it to my face... Give it a try: 1600 James Drive, Rock Springs, WY 82901 (if you ain't scared)
@salihadjic: Whats the source of your figures Barney Fife, because they don’t come from the organization that was set up specifically to verify and save such figures. Everything I posted I gave references to where it came from and they all had sources that trace to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office). I even told you where the definitions came from when I had to teach your dumb ass the difference between economics and an economic theory.
@salihadjic: You brought numbers that make no sense and are not legitimate except in the gullible, feeble minds of ignorant wingnuts. - Post something from the CBO dumbass.
That’s the problem with you retards; you’re “willfully ignorant”, you want nothing to do with the truth. I sent you a link to a website that has every point referenced and traceable to the CBO for verification but by your own admission you didn’t even look at it.
@salihadjic: I posted tax figures also traceable to the CBO and you ignored them. But your ignorant, brainwashed, retarded ass posts up numbers that exist nowhere except on your crackpot, wingnut websites.
Did it cross you mind at all why the wingnut bullshit your read (which we both know wasn’t in any class room) told your gullible, dense, ass that it was economic fundamentals and not what it truly was…economic theory?
@salihadjic: Has it ever crossed your dense, thick, mind why the information on your little wingnut websites never have links to the sources of their so-called information…why NONE of their information can be traced back to the CBO?
But you know and I know you know that everything you’ve embrace is a lie – Like I said; you’re WILLFULLY ignorant. And you come in the real world and get made a fool, just like you did here everytime.
@salihadjic: I’m not even going to go over again how many things you fucked up and how many times you tripped over yourself, I’m tired of reposting it.
And when you get done with your bullshit tax figures that some rightwing crackpot about as mentally deficient as you put together answer a few questions for me – How many republicans presidents have balanced a budget in the last fifty years?
@salihadjic: Beginning with Reagan, and with no emergencies, why do the GOP presidents hold all the negative records? Took a good economy and in eight years collapsed it (Bush & GOP congress), tripled the debt (Reagan), doubled the debt (Bush), fastest surplus to deficit (Bush) increased the debt more than all presidents before him combined (Reagan)...
@salihadjic: ...increased the debt more than all presidents before him combined (Bush), lowest job creation rate in history (Bush). The gap between rich and middle class/poor grew more than in 80 yrs (Bush).
@salihadjic: And since Reagan All the positive records, “during non-emergency administrations”, are held by Democrats – largest economic expansion in history, most new jobs created under a single administration. Unemployment lowest in 30yrs. Lowest inflation since 60’s, largest six year drop in poverty in 30 yrs, largest surplus ever, single largest deposit put toward alleviating the national debt.
@salihadjic: Ofcourse Clinton is the president here. Obama has an emergency none of the others had, so he can’t fairly be included any more than the budgets of presidents during WWII can be compared to those of peacetime presidents.
And understand Doofus; I’m not talking about one year. Nobody gives a shit about a one or two year spike. I’m talking about a read of the TOTAL TIME IN OFFICE.
@salihadjic: But as I said; you purposefully evade the point, which is - Reagan and every GOP president thats come after him have either doubled, tripled or otherwise added trillions to the debt, WITHOUT world wars or economies to fix or any type of real emergencies.
@salihadjic: So are you saying Reagn never dropped the rate down to 28%?? Do you REALLY want me to paste some shit in your face again.??...truce over, can't deal with stupidity
@salihadjic: So is that it? All you've got to cling to is, "you said doubling the tax rate is what helped keep Clinton from screwing up the debt like Reagan but really it was increasing it by another number that did"....LOL?
Please say you're done. I can't take much more of this.....LOL
@talan3000 tax was in fact significantly higher than Clinton's. That is where you (not me) have discredited yourself. Which is why i haven't read any of the potential lies you have typed here.
Now you may get back to your web design, i hope you better at that than at debating
(Conciseness - you may need to learn more about that word )
@salihadjic: Everytime I think you’ve outdone yourself with absolutely retarded comments you go and post something even dumber. This is you, “Reagan's corporate tax was in fact significantly higher than Clinton's”. Let me copy and paste for you one more time. This is from investopedia-dot-com, “UNDER REAGAN Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which, among other changes, lowered the highest marginal tax rate from 50-28%, and reduced the corporate tax rate.”...more
@salihadjic: ...The CLINTON ADMINISTRATION repealed some of the Reagan tax cuts with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which tacked on 36% and 39.6% marginal tax rates for individuals and a 35% rate for corporations”. There you have it once again in black and white. I know you said you were “trying to familiarize me with few basic economical principles”, but please…no more, your’r too much for me.
@salihadjic: This is the “FACTUAL REALITY” we live in. But I’d bet my bottom dollar there’s one individual that will not let simple things like irrefutable facts stop their delusions. I figure if they delude themselves into believing they’re an economics student, and that supply-side economics is a science and not one of many economic theories then who the hell am I to stop them from ignoring the rest of reality.
It is truly sad that you have spent so much time typing things that make no sense.
I have been explicit pointing out where the famous 90s economic boom have began. I have given you numbers showing that 97s tax cuts have produced major economic growth that Clinton usually takes credit for.
I'm tired of arguing with ignorant halfwit who thinks that there are many different economic points of view on the given matter. (i bet you have been 'googling' all the stuff i wrote)
@talan3000 (though your knowledge about economics are ripped of from wikipedia. Don't argue with me on that, you perfectly know it) However, i am always glad to educate you.
See, many different economist including Keynes himself (the father of Keynesianists ) have been proposing the theories similar to that of Lafer. Very few economists disagree on this matter. Keynesians, Austrian school economists etc (maybe Marxians would disagree) they all agree on this issue.
@talan3000 ... are usually taught in schools are modern mainstream . It includes general principles (that all economists agree on), some Keynesian and national (american school - followers of Hamilton).
It is funny that you mention Keynesian economics, because that is how US economy is being managed. (and have been for years). Keynsian tariffs, corrective taxes, subsidies - those thing were the parts of Reaganomics
Aside from that, you make yourself look really stupid by claiming..
@talan3000 ... that there is some magical alternative school of economics that will save the bullshit you are spewing. No, i am afraid even Marxians will tell you that taxes are inefficient.
You like talking about facts, well those are the facts. Taxes are inefficient. Price floors and ceilings, such as wage floor and rent control cause surpluses and shortages respectively. Wage floors cause unemployment, rent control causes housing shortages,lines and bad apartment conditions ...
Re: About Obamacare and the need for it: I have heard people say it would make Healthcare costs cheaper.
That is all great, but how do you expect to decrease the cost when you have to an entire nation who is the most obese in the world? All those alcoholics and hardcore drug users too! This is not to be a prick or anything, but even if you include all of those people, it will put the squeeze on the elderly like this guy said in the video!
Zombie1Boy 6 days ago
In the three and a half years since this video came out, you will notice that Republicans have been very consistent with their reasons to why things are fucked up (hint: Obama and the extreme leftist ideology). What do Democrats say? Bad Economy, Bush's Fault, those Evil Republicans "not working with us", and/or Obama needs another term(!) to fix this mess.
Zombie1Boy 6 days ago
We gotta reform ahh tax code nigga...nawwwhat i meeaan...ol' dirty rest in peace baby.
Saying it loud, fast and "urban" doesn't make it logically sound.
WrongWayKid3 1 month ago
Fuck Nigger Obama off with his Nigger head spook
MrRamm1988 1 month ago
You're an idiot.
lilmisspenguinlady 1 month ago
@lilmisspenguinlady <---- Typical hate filled, name calling, smearing, condescending, elitist, "tolerant and loving", liberal/socialist/democrat!
JohnQuincyAdams1 1 week ago
Ignorance run wild. "what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
tjmuff 2 months ago
buddy, you have made my day...thanks for this!! You are a genius!
Coopersboy7 2 months ago
Everyone is saying that this guy should be a politician, but please, he's way too smart for that bullshit.
181erob 4 months ago 3
I like this guy!!! I too with he could get this message out!!! This guy is really really smart and knows what he is talking about explains things very well!!!
kczyblnd41 4 months ago
They can't win on facts so they shift to "principal". "We're Christian" (but we hate blacks & gays & love war). We want "gov. out of our lives", yet we want gov. to tell women what to do with their bodies & want gov to tell people to pray @ school & decide what people can get married."
talan3000 4 months ago
I know this clown is going to bar me again, so I'll post until he does. The GOP knows they can't win on facts. They took a good economy and crashed it. They took $1trillion in debt and turned it into $9trillion in debt (Reagan&Bushs), without a collapsed economy to fix. Icreased the gap between rich & midleclass more than anyone else. Education dropped to 37th in the word under them. They can't name ONE THING that was not made worse while they were in power.
talan3000 4 months ago
The GOP cries about taxing the rich but $9trillion of the $14 trillion in debt was put there by Reagan and the Bushs. When they refuse to tax the wealthy what that means is our kids and grand kids will have to pick up the tab. When we lose the revenue by not taxing the rich that means we borrow from China to pay, which means our kids are the ones ultimately paying because it becomes their debt. This is how Reagan tripled the debt and Bush doubled the bebt.
talan3000 4 months ago
@talan3000
Ever heard of a Lafer's curve? Study some economics and you will understand why taxes are inefficient and at some point lowering taxes brings more government revenue.
Reaganomics caused economical boom in 90s. The median wages almost doubled from 80s to mid 90s and why? Because both Bush Sr, and Clinton have continued Reagan's tax cuts policies.
Detroit is a quintessence of progressive/ lib policies. Democrats have been ruling the city for more than half of a century
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic -- What you are is technically called "brainwashed". You believe something that defies the laws of mathematics and you believe not because you've experienced it or seen it but because it's something you were told and you were gullible enough to fall for it.
When Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy lower than any other president in history there was no "increase in gov revenue". To make up for the lost tax revenue there was an "increase in BORROWING FROM CHINA"
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic -- It's no coincidence that along with Reagans unprecedented tax cuts came unprecedented borrowing and unprecedented debt. Reagan wrote the blueprint for borrowing from China and spending money we don't have. Reagan still stands as the only president to triple the national debt, and this is a direct result of the taxing policies of reaganomics.
HW Bush gave a pledge of "no new taxes" and he stuck to it for three years and finally he saw that it was raising teh debt too much....
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic - ...he saw taht it waas raising the debt too much and in his last year he went against the GOP and raised the tax rate for the wealthy.
Clinton kept the higher tax rate that HW Bush set in place his last year. This is why Clinto actually balanced the budget. This is why he didn't triple the debt like Reagan or double it like GW Bush.
What you need to start doing is your own independent research instead of being a brainwashed stooge, making statements you cannot backup.
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000
Brainwashed? I call it educated.
In a short run taxcuts increase debt, in a long run they contribute to economic growth. Taxes cause deadweight loss, that is fact - in perfect society there will be no taxes.
Besides, you can't blame Reagan and Bush, they have just been trying to undo these all the mess FDR and LBJ have left after them.
There would have never been a debt after taxcuts if it wasn't for huge spending - SS, Medicare and other entitlement programs....
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic -- the only problem with your argument is you don't have a shred of evidence to back up the bullshit. We've got TWO presidents in American history that dished out that level of tax cuts to the wealthy. One was Reagan, who is the only predidnet to triple the debt and created no more jobs on a yearly basis than Carter and the other is GW Bush, who is the only president to doulble teh debt and has the lowest job creation record in history.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic -- What I've given you is historical fact. If we were in court it would be called evidence....it's irrefutable. IF you want links to sources I can post them when I get home.
When I say you're brainwashed it's because you preach something that you don't have a shred of evidence to back up. We can see with our own eyes what happened when the GOP was in office. From 1980 to 2008 the Bushs and Reagan combined increasedd teh debt ten fold -- from $1trillion when Reagan took office to ...
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000
I just told you why the debt increased. It increased because of the number of costly entitlement programs which are technically unconstitutional. Medicare and Social Security comprise a big part of the budget, if it weren't for those programs the taxes wouldn't have increased in the first place.
Cato Institute analysis shows that Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years;
salihadjic 2 months ago
@talan3000
whatever Clinton did he technically continued Reagan-Bush policies, because he did not introduce major (MAJOR) tax increases compared to gigantic tax cuts that Reagan made. Those policies were necessary, we wouldn't have seen America as it is if it weren't for Reagan era tax cuts.
Look at the numbers, look at how gdp grew from 80s up until the global recession. Never have US experienced such an economic growth, never. The theory says taxes are inefficient for the economy
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic -- You have proven yourself a political buffoon. You know absolutely nothing of political history or facts or data. You are one of the many mindless mouth pieces that listen to whatever they hear on am radio and Faux News then come into the real world repeating it and make idiots of yourselves.
I love and educated debated but obviously education, as it pertains to politics is missing here. I've wasted enough time with you as it is.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic -- WTF are you talking about; Reagan taxed the corporations at 15%. Clinton doubled it, taxing them at 30%. And CLINTON had the largest economic expansion in American history, not Reagan.And when GW came in after Clinton he lowered them again to Reagan levels and the result was the lowest job creation record in history.
And Reagan, as I said, created no more jobs per year than Jimmy Carter. Thess are your too living examples of trickle down.
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000
1986 Tax Reform Act by Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period. Still both Reagan's and Clinton's taxes were nowhere near that of FDR (even JFK and LBJ realized that such high taxes strangle economy). Clinton signed a major tax cuts in 1997 which caused the economy to blossom
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic --
Took you this long to look this up and copy and paste huh?...LOL
Copy and pasting is what rightwing stooges do best. – Ordinarily when I’m dealing with someone who’s proven they know nothing of political or historical fact I stop dealing with them, but sense I’m bored and can’t sleep, I’ll entertain myself.
You’re talking about taxes being raised in 1986. Reagan took office in 1980, which is the term in which he gave the ridiculously low corporate rates of 15%....
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic - He ‘increased’ the tax rate in 1986 specifically because the extremely low, unprecedented tax rate was killing the country. – thank you for proving my point. The same thing happened with HW Bush. He was a moderate but trying to please his party he promised “no new taxes”. He saw that the loss of revenue from way too low taxes was driving the country into the ground and running up the debt so in his last year he went back on his promise and raised taxes.
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000
Your "historical facts" have proven to fail you again. Here is some more for you. After the tax cut of 1997 the first full year(98) in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again.
Please stick to web design, you are obviously clueless about economics and political science.
I am done with you.
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: 1997..1999??? Why are you quoting Clintons numbers? You just proved my point on your last post when you pointed out that Reagan had to increase the corporate tax rates now you’re using Clintons numbers for your argument…the democrat that “I’ve” been championing?? And a member of the party you claim can’t balance budgets. Who the hell taught you how to debate???Let me remind you what “YOUR” point is.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Your ‘original’ point was GOP trickledown is better….even though every president that’s practiced it has either doubled or tripled the debt, had staggered job growth and all around messed the country up for the presidents coming behind them, which is why you’re quoting Clintons numbers and not one of those you claim to support...
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: I find it hilarious that you use the term “common sense” a lot. I’ll tell you what common sense is. Common sense is when someone tells you something as fact it’s common sense to observe it to see if it’s true.
Once a theory is put into practice it’s no longer just a theory, it’s either a proven or disproven theory. Gravity was initially just a theory but after Isaac Newton “proved” his theory it became the law of gravity instead of the theory of gravity...
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: That said; the trickle down theory has been tried….there’s no need at this point for text books and listening to brainwashed rightwing crackpot stooges. All we have to do is look at what happened when the theory was put into practical application. Between Gw Bush, HW Bush, and Reagan we’ve got 20 yrs. of practical app…..more than enough time for trickle down to bear its fruits. So what were the results?
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: You say lower corporate taxes make companies hire yet GW Bush holds the record for lowest job creation in history. Reagan produced no more jobs per year than Jimmy Carter.
The social programs dems like are what drive up debt yet Reagan axed more programs than any other president yet still tripled the debt and to date is still the only president to ever do so.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: They like to deregulate business to so as not to choke business (according to them) yet it was fraud made possible by deregulation that is the main cause of the financial and housing collapse. In fact every major financial catastrophe you can think of happened on GOP watch, after GOP deregulation (S&L, ENRON, the current collapse).
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: The national debt, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter never went above $1.5 trillion. However, the three trickle down presidents (HW Bush, GW Bush and Reagan) single handedly increased thr national debt TEN FOLD….from $1trillion in 1980 (Reagan) to $10 trillion in 2008 (Bush). These are the fruits of trickle down. This isn’t from four years or ten years, this is 20 friggin years, and this all they have to show for that debunked bullshit theory.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic:
To the stooges I ask HOW LONG?? How friggin long are you going to sit there like a doof and keep saying “it’s going to work”?? Atleast the communists have China to help their argument for economic theories, it’s one of the strongest economies but the crackpot stooges have nothing. Not one president that’s practiced trickedown has left ‘anything’ for you to point to and say “there…it works”.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: All you can do is what you’ve been doing and that’s screw up the facts and hope the person you’re talking to doesn’t know history or politics or start quoting theories from a book that have already been debunked.
So in closing; if somethings been in play for twenty years and you don't have ONE existing example to 'prove' the bs you say it's capable of doing, only excuses why the other party is doing wonderful things, then "common sense" should tell you you're being made a fool.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic -- ...so you argument is "ignore what happens in the real world, pay attention to what some nut wrote in a book"? Zat it?
If I wanted to buy a car you could tell me all day what the stats on the car are, but all I will really care about is how the car performs when I get behind the wheel. We see how trickedown performs, the same way we see how communism performs and fascism, and totalitarianism. They all had someone praising their systems as the best ever
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000 The economy averaged 4.2 percent real growth per year from 1997 to 2000 a full % point higher than after1993 tax hike. Real wages grew at 6.5 %, which is much stronger than the 0.8 percent growth of the preceding period. Finally, total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose an astounding 95 percent. The period from 1997 to 2000 forms the memory of the booming 1990s, and it followed the passage of tax relief that was originally opposed by President Clinton
salihadjic 2 months ago
@talan3000
You really need to take economics class, because otherwise you are just wrongly interpreting historical facts
Clinton have been forced to balance budget by the Republican Congress and speaker Gingrich,
Please just for the sake of it, take a look at the economic theory, check for yourself how taxes, price caps and wage floors affect economy, check for yourself how did US government learned from its experience who payed for a luxury tax
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic -- The problem with the "Clinton was so successful because of the GOP congress" argument is that GW Bush had the same congress. Not just "A" GOP congress but "the same" GOP congress. SO you'd have to explain why that congress was able to "force" Clinton into balancing the budget and leaving a surplus, and then the same congress, with nothing changing but the president, followed with the greatest deficit and debt in American history.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic -- ... Like I said; I gotta go. But as far a economics class. I personally don't believe you know the first thing about economics. I'm not doubting some rightwing economist wrote such theories - makes him about as right as Karl Marx, but still I dont' think YOU read any of it. YOu spit out the rightwing, "unsupported, unprovable" be too well . You're a blind, def and dumb stooge. Like I said...I gotta run.
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000 You should keep in mind a long term growth. I can't argue with you successfully if you reject Economics as a theory. But if you do accept you should first study Macro and Microeconomics, otherwise it doesn't make sense for me to argue with you.
Every president of the US, every sane person who have ever studied economics knows that taxcuts attribute to overall economic growth. Now debt is a different topic, and i have mentioned number of times why we have such a deficit
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic -- You know what Sal: when I started dong web design there were a lot of things in the books that didn't apply when I was in the real world doing it. In fact, they say on paper a bumble isn't supposed to be able to fly according to the laws of aero dynamics.
But if in the real world I see a bumble bee flying and if in the real world there are things i deal with building websites that contradict what I read in a book, then which do I accept as reality...the book or real life?
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic -- And then you look at the source of the book. Who wrote it, why? There are many books written on Marxism and Communism. It reads real well. Says if you go by it no one will go hungry and the country will flourish --- but it don't quite happen like that in real life now does it? Just like this trickle down bs. Theres not one comunnist country thats thriving just like theres not one trickledown president thats not greatly increased the debt or balanced a budget.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic -- to $10 trillion when GW Bush left office. The only democrat in the white house during that time span was Clinton and he balanced the budget and didn't; adda trillion to the debt. The GOP single handedly increased the debt ten times over. Look teh shit up if you can read.
And since there's been no prosperous GOP administration since Reagan, no balanced budget, doubling and tripling of debt, minimal job creation, they decide to tell their feeble minded stooges "We're the reason...
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic -- ..."we're the reason the dems do so well".
Look dude; when Bush started screwing up the country the results were immediate. The economy went down and stayed down. he never created more than 3000,000 in a year.
His Community Re-Investment Act caused the housing bubble but it burst during his second term. It doesn't take a decade or two, it takes generally two to six years to see teh results of a presidents policies, depending on the policy.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic -- It didn't take ten years for the unpaid for Iraq war to destroy the surplus Clinton left, it just took two years. The changes Reagan made to squash inflation didn't take decades for the results, they saw them while he was president.
And before you post up anymore rightwing crackpot lunacy please have soem historical data to back it up or some "credible" links, because nothing you've posted is supported by anything.
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000
There is nothing wrong with a debt when it is in reasonable numbers, like under Reagan, today, however, we pay a big amount in interest, our debt is at least 10 times more than that of Reagan or Bush Sr. times.
You are totally clueless
Ever heard of 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates?
Even now Clinton calls for a corporate tax cut,
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: "There is nothing wrong with a debt when it is in reasonable numbers, like under Reagan".
Reagan took the debt from $1 trillion to nearly $3 trillion. He practically tripled it and you say there was nothing wrong with it? What world do you live in?? The debt was not tripled during WWI nor WWII, nor during FDR's New Deal, nor Vietnam. Are you actually reading what you're posting??
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000 You are running in circles. I have already explained you a long run and short run effects. You keep digging up some questionable data and keep misinterpreting it. If you look closely into history, you will find out that Roosevelt led them all at Gross Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP, OVER 120% HISTORICAL!!! thank New Deal etc. Reagan hardly went over 60%
Democrat Wilson was the one who created a debt ceiling (Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917)
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: What you’ve explained is what I’ve already pointed out – you don’t know jack about what you’re talking about. Oh, you know the rightwing dogma about supply-side economics, which I didn’t prove flawed but history proved flawed. You’re like a man who buys a car that doesn’t work and he sits there and keeps rereading the manual and everybody can see it doesn’t work but you keep responding, “but the manual says it does”.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: And the guy that sold it to you keeps blowing smoke up your butt about how it really works but you gotta look at it from another angle. Meanwhile you’re still sitting in a ditch, going nowhere, believing him.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Tell you what genius; take a look at this website -- bunkinthewest-dot-wordpress-dot-com/2008/09/04/republican-democrats-national-debt-and-fiscal-responsibility/ -- This was posted by a girl that grew up as a conservative but had sense enough to do a little independent research when she grew up and came to her own enlightened opinion. Everything she posted is backed up by credible links and factual history.
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000
Is this a website that you have designed doing your 'webdesign' job? If you suck at that as much as you suck at debating and interpreting the facts and statistics then I'd rather avoid this site.
To be serious, what you have said is ridiculous. I have a degree in economics (currently work on my masters) and you expect me to throw out the whole science because of your sentiMENTAL story about some non-existing "conservative" closet socialist girl that have finally came out?
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Your quote, “If you suck at that as much as you suck at debating and interpreting the facts and statistics …”. The thing about facts genius is that they need no interpretation…either they exist or they don’t. Either two plus two equals four or it doesn’t. That’s the problem with you rightwing stooges - you ingest so many lies, so often, from your puppet masters that you no longer know the difference between a fact and an opinion or a fact and a theory.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: And if you truly are an economics student (which based on your statements I sincerely doubt) but if you are you are the dumbest one I’ve ever seen and I’ll tell you why. This is you again, “you expect me to throw out the whole science because of your sentiMENTAL story about some non-existing "conservative" closet socialist girl that have finally came out”. Here again; there is a difference between a “science”, which you THINK you’ve learned anda “theory”, which you HAVE learned.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: If youd’ve taken formal classes you’d know this. You’d know that what you’ve been spewing is not “economics”, but ‘one theory’ of economics and the theory you didn’t even name because you probably don’t know the term for it but it’s technically called “supply-side” economics, commonly known as “trickle down”. According to your posts this is all you’ve learned of economics, which is why you think it’s a science.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Aside from the supply-side ‘theory’ there’s Keynesian economics, Oligarchic economics, Plutocracies, but the only thing you have a clue about is the one you learned about in a book you probably borrowed from a friend. If you ARE a student then A) you need to upgrade from the classes in your mothers basement or B) you should switch majors from economics to home economics….that just might be something you can grasp.
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000
Your delusions and naivety are astonishing. I am not telling you this to educate you or to try to patronize you or something, but please, do yourself a favor and take few basic economics classes. They all teach historical examples and you will learn to make valid inferences. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to even argue with you; you just keep spewing your partisan nonsense. It is not about politics.
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Yea, they have have "historical examples", that you as a 'student' can't bring yourself to reference....yea, ok student.
And you say it's not about politics when you're the one that said dems don't like balanced budgets, which I had you show you who actually is balancing budgets and who's not. You also wrongly attempted to credit Clintons success to the very congress thats responsible for supporting Bush in crashing the economy. That too, I had to get you straight on the truth.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic:...so please kill the "it's not about politcs bs. One term you used I found very interesting though -- “Delusions”; it means - An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is factual reality. “FIRMLY MAINTAINED DESPITE BEING CONTRADICTED BY WHAT IS FACTUAL REALITY”….sound familiar??Sali “firmly maintains” that trickle down and the rightwing are better for the economy despite being contradicted by these “factual realities”:
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: The last three presidents to balance the budget were all dems (Clinton, LBJ Kennedy).
No GOP president has balanced a budget in over fifty years (Eisenhower)
In twenty years three GOP presidents increased the national debt ten times over from $1trillion when Reagan took office to $10 trillion in 2008 when Bush left office (Reagan, HW Bush, GW Bush)
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: GW Bush enacted the extreme tax cuts to the wealthy for 8yrs, which according to the trickle down “delusion” should have given him the highest or one of the highest job creation rates but he instead holds the lowest job creation rate in history.
With trickle down Reagan created no more jobs per year than Jimmy Carter.
The Bush tax cuts the GOP forced Obama to sign will add $7 billion to the debt without creating one job (source, CBO)
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Entitlement programs are responsible for the debt yet Reagan who got rid of more of them than anyone else never balanced a budget and tripled the national debt. Clinton who A) maintained a corporate tax rate double that of Reagan and B) Implemented major “entitlement” programs, balanced the budget and left a surplus.
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000
Where did you get that Clinton doubled reagan's corporate tax??? Are you kidding me ? Corporate tax is not a number, we have a progressive corporate tax.
Reagan lowered the lowest bracket from 16% to 15 % and it stayed till these days (through Clinton, Bush, Obama presidency).
While the top bracket was 46%, Reagan lowered it to 40%, Bush lowered it to 34%, Clinton didn't change much, just raised it to 35% still much lower than under Reagan
salihadjic 2 months ago
@talan3000
You lost all your credibility with this.. now go back to your webdesign, or whatever the shit you do for a living. I am tired of your lies
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: You’ve got a BS in economics alright, but the BS is not for Bachelor of Science, it’s for BULLSHIT. The only economics class you’ve had is here on this thread and I was glad to teach you. Look at what we’ve learned.
1) You originally said a GOP congress was responsible for Clintons success. - tried to backpeddle later after I proved you wrong but was proven wrong none-the-less.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: 2)Oddly, you also tried to give credit to Reagan for Clintons success and then even some 1997 tax reduction Clinton did 3) but I proved both wrong
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic:
4) You claimed dems “don’t like balanced budgets” but I proved that dem administrations have been the only ones with balanced budgets since Eisenhower.
5) you thought economic policies took decades to show effects but then proved ‘yourself’ wrong once again.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic:
6) you thought the debt numbers were “reasonable” under Reagan but I proved to you the debt tripled under Reagan.
7) you thought supply-side economic “theory” was basic economic “science”
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: I really hope that you are done because I have a lot better things to do than sit here and give you free lessons on economics. Now go to your old teacher, who is probably on am radio and tell him to stop giving you information that makes you look like an idiot.
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000
Free lessons? Hah, your "wikipedia economics lessons" are worthless.
You lost your last shred of credibility when claimed that Clinton doubled the corporate tax. I didn't even read all the bullshit you typed because chances are validity of your claims pretty much equals to that of your corporate tax knowledge.
Now i am starting to doubt you even got a GED. (personally i am sure all that is not even worth reading)
As i've said, stick to webdesign, or whatever piss you do
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: LOL...yea, if I were you I wouldn't want to read it either. Practically everything you posted has been thoroughly proven to be 100% grade A BULLSHIT. You been had. The thing is; the republicans know it's bullshit, they just do the trickle down game to keep money in their rich friends pockets...they know it doesn't help the overall economy. We can go back to my very first comments, which were, "if lower taxes increase jobs and revenue why did Bush....
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic:...why did Bush, the only president to implement those ridiculous tax codes for eight years, not have the largest job creation or close to it or even in the ranking. Why didn't Reagan have the best numbers or close to it since they slashed taxes more than anyone else? But Bush has the worst job creation numbers of all and Reagans numbers aren't stellar. Somewhere down the line you gotta use common sense and deductive reasoning.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Yea, the GOP knows they're not helping the economy nor the brainwashed stooges that support them, but they have to tell you lies to keep your support so they can keep screwing you over and like an abused kid you're more than willing to keep allowing them to stick it to you.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: And if I lost credibility over one tax claim. And I'll pretend you were right on that and I was wrong for arguments sake. If that ONE discrepancy cancelled my credibility, which one of the fifteen or so inaccuracies and inconsistencies that you posted all over this thread cancelled yours??
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000
Either you intentionally distorted the facts taking the lower bracket of Regan's corporate tax and comparing it to Clinton's upper bracket, or you just a moron. In both cases you do not deserve credibility because: 1) liar doesn't deserve any credibility, 2) moron does not deserve credibility either.
I am done with you, moron/liar
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Are you kidding me??? The imbecile that doesn’t know the difference between economics and an economic theory, didn’t even know that different theories existed, didn’t know the term for the theory he was quoting and didn’t even know it was a theory at all. - Have been proven wrong about practically everything your sorry ass has posted.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: I’ve listed atleast ten of your bumbling, dullwitted mistakes and there’s “atleast” another five I casually came across that I didn’t bother to mention because you’re too pathetic to waste anymore time or energy on. And as dumb and misinformed and blatantly ignorant as you are you STILL make a lame attempt to past yourself off as an economy major.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: A doof that doesn’t know the difference between the fundamentals of an economy and economic theory is about the equivalent of someone claiming to be a math major not knowing the difference between multiplication and addition…laughable. And it’s stunning that after being outted for the lying goofball that you are, after all your bullshit, know-it-all talk you still have the gal to still post anything here at all.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: And you not only have the gal to still post but have the audacity to call someone else “moron”???.....LOL. That’s really funny.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Atleast come clean and say “I’ve never been nor am I smart enough to ever be an economics student”…can you do that? And admit, “I was fooled by my rightwing puppet masters. They told me all the bs I’ve been posting and I was gullible enough to believe it and too stupid to do any independent research before I made a jackass of myself in front of the world.”
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000 How else would you call someone who really believes that the corporate tax could be doubled without serious consequences on economy - a moron. Even if you have been misled by the false information (apparently from BSnbs, or was it msnbc) you should have used your own brain to evaluate whether the information is at least plausible. Well it isn't, and it turned out to be false.
You could also chose to be a compulsive liar. As i have said, you got no credibility
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic - I was done here but I just had a video link sent to my email and I had to share the info. Its pointing out the fact that the "CAPITAL GAINS" tax, which is the tax I was talking about that Bush slashed in half was 28% under Clinton and Bush "slashed" it to 15%. If you understand math thats practically "half". So the one one little piece here you had clung to that you thought you were right about turns out to be wrong too......damn. LOL
talan3000 1 month ago
@talan3000
You are wrong again, because the Capital gains tax is progressive as well, which means it couldn't be just one number. (Mistake number 1)
(Mistake number 2) Yes it did went under down under Bush, but does it mean Bush was the one "slashing" it? No. Guess why it went down under Bush? The taxpayer relief act of 1997 (signed by Bill Clinton) which provided that the rate would drop to 8 percent in 2001 and then to 18 in 2006. (by brackets)
Dude, stop embarrassing yourself
salihadjic 1 month ago
@salihadjic: ...and the info came from a guy named Bruce Bartlet. He worked in both the Reagan and HW Bush administrations. I can send you the link if you want.
talan3000 1 month ago
@talan3000
Oh come on... You just don't know how get yourself out of this so you think you'd better attack me. You obviously screwed up, and that puts everything you have said in question. That was an obvious attempt to distort the truth, after that you'd better be quiet about reliability of different news sources. However, If you weren't distorting the truth then you are just not intelligent enough to discuss economics or politics, for you can't evaluate the plausibility of a claim
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic:
Get out of what?? There’s nothing for ME to get out of Doofus. I’m not the one sitting here claiming to be a economics major but don’t know the difference between economic fundamentals and economic theory. But lets address the tax issue. The point was that Clinton keeping the taxes at a higher rate is the reason he didn’t raise the debt like Reagan and Bush did. That’s the point and that’s a proven fact.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: ...Whether he doubled it, tripled it or raised it by two cents doesn’t matter….he raised them.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: ...But you don’t even have a clue what YOU’RE talking about, let alone what I’m talking about.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: When I told your dumbass that the don’t tax don’t spend bs you were spewing was “supply-side” rightwing bullshit theory your ignorant ass told me atleast three times it was “economic science”…”fundamentals that all economists agree upon”. In fact you called me a “lackwit”. Told me I should “take economic classes”. Well tell me doofus; what economics classes did YOU take??
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Who gave you a Bachelors of Science in Economics when your dumb ass didn’t know the difference between economic science and economic principals?? Like I said; it’s the equivalent of claiming to be a math major and not knowing the difference between multiplication and addition. I know you’re not an economics student, anyone that reads these posts knows you’re not an economics student, I’m just wondering if YOU really think you’re a student.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: You’re a cartoon character. You’re like Barney Fife on the Andy Griffith show. He’s a deputy that thinks he’s Gods gift to law enforcement but screws up everything he touches. He has a gun and one bullet he keeps in his pocket and everybody knows he’s a screwup but him….LOL. I’ll bet you watch a few war movies, got to the army surplus and buy some camouflage utilities and come out pretending to be a Marine too huh??...LOL
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: I’m going to list a few of your highlights once again:
You came out arguing lower taxes are better, then to support your argument you copy and paste information about Reagan “raising” taxes in 1986 – thank you for making my point. You first claimed policy takes decades to see the results…claimed Reagan was responsible for Clintons economic success, then after I proved you a completely clueless buffoon on that you changed it and later said...
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: ...Clinton caused the nineties boom with legislation he signed in 97’. This was funny for two reasons, A) you proved yourself wrong (again) with your own comments about policies taking decades to show effects and B) and this is the real killer; you actually think a bill signed in ’97, that in your pasted info says it didn’t come into full effect until ’98 is what caused the nineties boom.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: And I’ll bet you right now you don’t even know WHY this is so ridiculous. The thing is brainiac; the nineties is a ten years span but if this bill came into full effect in ’98 that’s only two friggin years. Not only do you not have common sense you can’t add.You said entitlements were the cause of the debt yet LBJ, who signed ‘many’ entitlements into law is one of the few presidents this century who had a balanced budget and he didn’t run up the debt.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic:Clinton also had many entitlements but he also not only balanced the budget but had best economy ever. While Reagan; who got rid of more entitlements than any other president, didn’t balance budget and tripled the debt.
I asked you to show me where the trickle down theory worked in real life and you quote Clintons numbers. – thanks for proving my point AGAIN.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: This is you talking shit again - “Every president of the US, every sane person who have ever studied economics knows that taxcuts attribute to overall economic growth. Now debt is a different topic, and i have mentioned number of times why we have such a deficit”.
Ok, I’ve already pummeled you to death with history and with the quoted definition of economics as it pertains to tax cuts, exposing how idiotic the part about taxes was.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: But about the debt; the CBO has stated that the Bush tax cuts added over $700 billion to Bushs debt. They also said the extension of those tax cuts Obama was forced to sign will add $7 billion to the current debt.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: I’m just floored at how much raw lunacy you’ve posted here…it’s endless. I really have to cut off here or I’ll be calling out your discrepancies all day. Everytime I go back over the post theres something else that’s just plain retarded. I am officially done here. Have a happy life, or imaginary life. Maybe you can get a rocket science degree from the same school that gave you the economics degree.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Quick correction; the CBO said extending the Bush tax cuts would add $2 billion to the debt I think, not the $7 billion I posted so Barney Fife here doesn't have a heart attack, even though the amount is not the point but the fact his dumb ass was wrong about tax cuts not adding to the debt.
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000 too bad a am not reading any of this.
Next time when you are having an argument with somebody, either make sure that the person is dumber than you (which i am sure will be a tough thing to do ), or at least prepare so you won't get embarrassed.
I want you to understand that i wasn't the one who discredited you. Conversely, i made an attempt to read all the bullshit you have been spewing and even tried to familiarize you with few basic economical principles...
salihadjic 2 months ago
@talan3000 yes, the very basic general principles: taxes, price floors and ceiling, unemployment. However when i mentioned the Lafer's curve you found it necessary to copy paste wikipidia here in order to demonstrate your "knowledge" of the supply side economics, which wasn't very smart.
But then you made a fool of yourself falsifying the facts on corporate tax, claiming that Clinton's corporate tax was a double of that of Reagan, which was a bold face lie. Reagan's corporate..
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: I tried to explain to you a number of times that what you were quoting was not economics but a debunked economic “theory” called supply-side economics. I was honestly surprised that you not only didn’t know this but hadn’t even heard of “supply-side” economics, especially sense that’s what you were reciting. You called me a “lackwit” for telling you you were quoting supply-side “theory” - told me I needed to take classes.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Once I saw that you didn’t know shit, I mean not even the basic fundamentals of what you were talking about is when I copied and pasted the definitions so your ignorant ass could see just how blatantly misinformed you’d been.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: One more time about the tax rate I mentioned - As I’ve already said; The tax rate I quoted isn’t the point. The point was (for the second time) raising taxes is what kept Clinton from mounting debt like Bush and Reagan – the “amount” is irrelevant. I’ll make this as simple as I can for you because it’s pain that you’re a simple person....
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: If you killed someone with cyanide, which takes a 1/2 oz to kill, and I, as prosecutor, tells the judge you gave him 8oz. of cyanide. And if your defense is, “I didn’t give him 8oz of cyanide, I gave him 2 oz.”. Guess what genius; your dumb ass is still going to prison because it don’t matter HOW MUCH cyanide was used, the point is cyanide killed him.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: That relates here because it is a tax hike that kept Clinton from the mounted debt of Reagan. So the point here is; the only way you can win this argument is to prove A) Clinton didn’t raise Reagan era taxes at all or B) prove he lowered them. But that would be kind of hard seeing that I just posted the information that he increased them. So as I said before; if your argument is Clinton only increased them by two cents, you still prove my point.
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000 You were talking about Clinton DOUBLING Reagan's corporate tax rate. You claimed it was 15% and Clinton turned it to 35%,The truth is Clinton raised corporate tax by 1% compared to Bush Sr. (34%), yet his tax was much LOWER compared to Reagan's.Raising corporate tax by only 1% was equivalent to agreeing to Reagn-Bush era taxcuts, for he did not pull it back even to Reagan era corporate tax - 40%.
You have failed there big time, and you are delusional for not admitting that
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Ok, I'll try to be civil, I'll lay off the language (for now...truce declared). I'll repost a quote I posted earlier, "Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which, among other changes, lowered the highest marginal tax rate from 50-28%, and reduced the corporate tax rate." The 1986 tax rate (that you mentioned earlier) was set at 28%....
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: In 1993, the CLINTON ADMINITRATION repealed some of the Reagan tax cuts with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which tacked on 36% and 39.6% marginal tax rates for individuals and a 35% rate for corporations.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Yea, as I stated earlier; Bush I made a pledge of "no new taxes", and he kept it until he saw it was driving up the debt and wasn't creating any jobs and he went back on that promise toward the end of his term and Clinton did keep the rates near where Bush raised them to.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Again and again you keep losing the point...or ignoring it. My original postings, that you made answer to, was that the rightwing supply-side presidents, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, doubled and tripled or otherwise added trillions to the debt, and had meager to abysmal job creation ratings.
The link I posted, that you refused to look at gave explicit, historically proven, detail of the comparisons between democrat and republican presidents.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: You sighted one year or two years that they may have had a pike. We're not looking at half a term or one year. We're looking at a president by his term and how he effected this country and Reagan and every republican president since him have done nothing but create debt.
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000
You are missing the point. If Clinton haven't rolled back Reagan era taxcuts, that only means he politically agreed with them. As i have demonstrated the average corporate taxrate during Reagan administration is higher, compared to that of Clinton's. The same thing here with an average INCOME tax rate.
Reagan's tax cuts were essential for economic growth and that does not need to have anything to do with supply side economics and Lafer's curve.
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Tell you what; when you can name a GOP president that balanced a budget within the last fifty years, when you can find a GOP president that can match the jobs Clinton produced, that didn't double or triple or add an excess of a trillion to the debt, without a world war and without an major catastrophes, then I'll deal with you.
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000
Again, i'm reminding you that you have admitted that debt during his presidency era is due to the entitlement programs. If you could get to cut the taxes AND cut the entitlement programs then there will be no debt. But that was impossible during Reagan, Bush and W Bush eras thanks to Democrat majority congress that has a habit of turning tax cuts policies against politicians advocating them, with their class warfare.
salihadjic 2 months ago
@talan3000 that is one of the basic economic principles. If you draw a supply/ demand graph and put a tax wedge in it, you will obviously see that the market has shrunk, total surplus (both consumer and producer's) decreased - that is NOT supply side economics. You do not even have to look at the long run and Lafer/Hayek's theories - those are the instant short run consequences .
As for debt, you admitted yourself that it mostly attributed to entitlement programs of New Deal, GS era
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: This is my last time posting here. Did'nt know I was literally dealing with a retard. Told your dumb ass that the presidents with the most entitlement programs (Clinton, LBJ) DIDN'T add to the debt, and they BALANCED THEIR BUDGETS. Reagan got rid of more entitlements than anybody yet tripled the debt and didn't come close to balancing a budget. but please...stay in your fantasy wingnut world
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: I just posted this somewhere else but I'll post it here too. It was the Capital gains tax I was refering to.which was 28% under Clinton and cut to 15% under Bush (HALF)...not sure what it was under Reagan.
So my mistake was saying Reagan when I should have said Bush but either way my point is still proven.
talan3000 1 month ago
@talan3000
here is some info, so you could finally get that our tax system is not flat, but progressive (i like that you call it flat though, i wish it were flat)
taxfoundation . org/taxdata/show/2088 . html - capital gains from '88 t0 '13 - you can browse the site, kid, and find some data on other taxes
BTW, what Clinton did with Capital gains, was a great idea, it would have increased investments.. Too bad the Global Economic crisis ruined the thing
salihadjic 1 month ago
@talan3000
I intended to have a civil conversation, but you are, as most lib-progressives, uncivilized, unintelligent and ignorant. I always figured that words like "shit" or "ass" are not appropriate for economical/political argument, but being a halfwit low life you probably used to having such diatribes.
As i have said, you have discredited yourself when falsified the information trying to pass the lower bracket as Reagan era tax rate. I bet you didn't even know that we have a ..
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: We deal with 'intelligent' debate accordingly. But if it turns out theirs a bufoon on the other end of the debate, that knows nothing but rightwing propaganda, who ignore and or avoid 'real' information, then we treat them accordingly.
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000 ...progressive corporate tax system. You thought that one number defines the corporate tax (flat tax rate). You should be thankful that i am teaching you all this.
However you, kid are very disrespectful. Speaking about "ass", i would kick yours for being such an ungrateful sleazebag.
I did, in fact, prove both of those points.
A and B
Compare an average corporate and individual income tax rates during Reagan and Clinton administration and you will admit that you are dumb
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: like I said; numbers are debatable. I got mine from the CBO and you got yours from a wingnut website. So as I've already posted; look at the totality of the administrations...who created the most jobs, who balanced budgets, who created debt, who collapsed the economy, whos legislation was responsible for and who was in office during every major financial catastrophe. I'm done here, can't believe I spent this much time screwin around with a brainwashed nut.
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000 During first 5 years of Reagan presidency the corporate tax(for the top bracket) was 46%, the last 3 years it was 40%; 34% and 34% - makes aprox 42.25% on average.
Lets looks at Clinton's era. He raised corporate tax from 34% to 35% (for the top bracket) and it stayed unchanged for whole 8 years.
What is more 42.25% or 35%? I'll help you with the math - 42.25% is more.
Here is a homework for you: calculate the averages for the top income bracket (clinton vs regan)
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: don't know where you're getting your numbers but Reagan chopped the corporate tax rate down to 28%.
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000
see, you are mixing everything up!! Goddamn, he NEVER "chopped" the corporate tax down to 28% (which would have been awesome)
Your 28% is his last two years INCOME TAX for a TOP BRACKET during his presidency!!! Yet on average it is still more than that of Clinton.
How could you have credibility after that?
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Damn you're dense as shit. Did you read the quote I posted. It specifically shows what the tax rates of both were you idiot. Can't fuck with you anymore Barney Fife. You're being blocked as spam. Good luck in your imaginary world as an economy major. Let me know when they give you a rocket science degree, and wings, and a laser gun.
talan3000 2 months ago
Comment removed
salihadjic 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@talan3000 Was i supposed to consider that quote without an author or a reference, moron?
you are only capable of talking dirty from your mama's home, i really doubt you would say any of that to my face, kid. Of course, hide your head in the sand, like a jackass - oh is that a symbol of Democrats. Keep hiding from the truth,
Bye
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: please believe I'd say everything to your face.
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000 You know you screwed up and you know i am not reading any of the bullshit you are spewing here, so don't waste your time. (i have made it clear with all the numbers, on average throughout the Clinton and Regan presidencies. So be a man (woman) and admit that you have failed )
Regarding the debt, again no president could compete with FDR by Debt as a % of GDP.
Also, about saying it to my face... Give it a try: 1600 James Drive, Rock Springs, WY 82901 (if you ain't scared)
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Whats the source of your figures Barney Fife, because they don’t come from the organization that was set up specifically to verify and save such figures. Everything I posted I gave references to where it came from and they all had sources that trace to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office). I even told you where the definitions came from when I had to teach your dumb ass the difference between economics and an economic theory.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: You brought numbers that make no sense and are not legitimate except in the gullible, feeble minds of ignorant wingnuts. - Post something from the CBO dumbass.
That’s the problem with you retards; you’re “willfully ignorant”, you want nothing to do with the truth. I sent you a link to a website that has every point referenced and traceable to the CBO for verification but by your own admission you didn’t even look at it.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: I posted tax figures also traceable to the CBO and you ignored them. But your ignorant, brainwashed, retarded ass posts up numbers that exist nowhere except on your crackpot, wingnut websites.
Did it cross you mind at all why the wingnut bullshit your read (which we both know wasn’t in any class room) told your gullible, dense, ass that it was economic fundamentals and not what it truly was…economic theory?
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Has it ever crossed your dense, thick, mind why the information on your little wingnut websites never have links to the sources of their so-called information…why NONE of their information can be traced back to the CBO?
But you know and I know you know that everything you’ve embrace is a lie – Like I said; you’re WILLFULLY ignorant. And you come in the real world and get made a fool, just like you did here everytime.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: I’m not even going to go over again how many things you fucked up and how many times you tripped over yourself, I’m tired of reposting it.
And when you get done with your bullshit tax figures that some rightwing crackpot about as mentally deficient as you put together answer a few questions for me – How many republicans presidents have balanced a budget in the last fifty years?
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Beginning with Reagan, and with no emergencies, why do the GOP presidents hold all the negative records? Took a good economy and in eight years collapsed it (Bush & GOP congress), tripled the debt (Reagan), doubled the debt (Bush), fastest surplus to deficit (Bush) increased the debt more than all presidents before him combined (Reagan)...
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: ...increased the debt more than all presidents before him combined (Bush), lowest job creation rate in history (Bush). The gap between rich and middle class/poor grew more than in 80 yrs (Bush).
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: And since Reagan All the positive records, “during non-emergency administrations”, are held by Democrats – largest economic expansion in history, most new jobs created under a single administration. Unemployment lowest in 30yrs. Lowest inflation since 60’s, largest six year drop in poverty in 30 yrs, largest surplus ever, single largest deposit put toward alleviating the national debt.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Ofcourse Clinton is the president here. Obama has an emergency none of the others had, so he can’t fairly be included any more than the budgets of presidents during WWII can be compared to those of peacetime presidents.
And understand Doofus; I’m not talking about one year. Nobody gives a shit about a one or two year spike. I’m talking about a read of the TOTAL TIME IN OFFICE.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: How was the country when they walked in the door compared to how it was when they walked out.
And by the way Barney Fife; whats the name of this college that gave you a degree in economics when you didn’t know the definition of economics?
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: But as I said; you purposefully evade the point, which is - Reagan and every GOP president thats come after him have either doubled, tripled or otherwise added trillions to the debt, WITHOUT world wars or economies to fix or any type of real emergencies.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: So are you saying Reagn never dropped the rate down to 28%?? Do you REALLY want me to paste some shit in your face again.??...truce over, can't deal with stupidity
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000
although, i already know the results and they are not in your favor.
(i am advising you against using wikipedia, they do not present the numbers for all years.)
I am not tired of saying this, : Please, stick to your web design, punk.
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Show me a GOP president that balanced a budget.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: So is that it? All you've got to cling to is, "you said doubling the tax rate is what helped keep Clinton from screwing up the debt like Reagan but really it was increasing it by another number that did"....LOL?
Please say you're done. I can't take much more of this.....LOL
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000 tax was in fact significantly higher than Clinton's. That is where you (not me) have discredited yourself. Which is why i haven't read any of the potential lies you have typed here.
Now you may get back to your web design, i hope you better at that than at debating
(Conciseness - you may need to learn more about that word )
salihadjic 2 months ago
@salihadjic: Everytime I think you’ve outdone yourself with absolutely retarded comments you go and post something even dumber. This is you, “Reagan's corporate tax was in fact significantly higher than Clinton's”. Let me copy and paste for you one more time. This is from investopedia-dot-com, “UNDER REAGAN Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which, among other changes, lowered the highest marginal tax rate from 50-28%, and reduced the corporate tax rate.”...more
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: ...The CLINTON ADMINISTRATION repealed some of the Reagan tax cuts with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which tacked on 36% and 39.6% marginal tax rates for individuals and a 35% rate for corporations”. There you have it once again in black and white. I know you said you were “trying to familiarize me with few basic economical principles”, but please…no more, your’r too much for me.
talan3000 2 months ago
@salihadjic: This is the “FACTUAL REALITY” we live in. But I’d bet my bottom dollar there’s one individual that will not let simple things like irrefutable facts stop their delusions. I figure if they delude themselves into believing they’re an economics student, and that supply-side economics is a science and not one of many economic theories then who the hell am I to stop them from ignoring the rest of reality.
talan3000 2 months ago
@talan3000
It is truly sad that you have spent so much time typing things that make no sense.
I have been explicit pointing out where the famous 90s economic boom have began. I have given you numbers showing that 97s tax cuts have produced major economic growth that Clinton usually takes credit for.
I'm tired of arguing with ignorant halfwit who thinks that there are many different economic points of view on the given matter. (i bet you have been 'googling' all the stuff i wrote)
salihadjic 2 months ago
@talan3000 (though your knowledge about economics are ripped of from wikipedia. Don't argue with me on that, you perfectly know it) However, i am always glad to educate you.
See, many different economist including Keynes himself (the father of Keynesianists ) have been proposing the theories similar to that of Lafer. Very few economists disagree on this matter. Keynesians, Austrian school economists etc (maybe Marxians would disagree) they all agree on this issue.
The economics that..
salihadjic 2 months ago
@talan3000 ... are usually taught in schools are modern mainstream . It includes general principles (that all economists agree on), some Keynesian and national (american school - followers of Hamilton).
It is funny that you mention Keynesian economics, because that is how US economy is being managed. (and have been for years). Keynsian tariffs, corrective taxes, subsidies - those thing were the parts of Reaganomics
Aside from that, you make yourself look really stupid by claiming..
salihadjic 2 months ago
@talan3000 ... that there is some magical alternative school of economics that will save the bullshit you are spewing. No, i am afraid even Marxians will tell you that taxes are inefficient.
You like talking about facts, well those are the facts. Taxes are inefficient. Price floors and ceilings, such as wage floor and rent control cause surpluses and shortages respectively. Wage floors cause unemployment, rent control causes housing shortages,lines and bad apartment conditions ...
salihadjic 2 months ago