Get Informed and Donate.....

[Zambroski]

3 minutes ago, oleroule said:

phoned the soviet union lately?

No, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night....and I read one of their papers this morning....funny shit on the Obumma administration and the current "blame game".  We make that whole country belly laugh.  Hell, the shit had me laughing and it was a pretty bad translation.

[Mileage Psycho]

34 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

And therein lies your problem IMO.  How has the formula of lower taxes, strong military (code for increased spending) worked out for us?  

It doesn't, I'm all for a strong military but I want a tax increase to go along with it, just like I wanted a war tax when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan as I feel all Americans should have to sacrifice during war time as it's bullshit to only expect those in uniform to make a huge sacrifice when the general public is to cheap and tight fisted to make a monetary sacrifice.

[Capt.Storm]

Just now, Mileage Psycho said:

It doesn't, I'm all for a strong military but I want a tax increase to go along with it, just like I wanted a war tax when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan as I feel all Americans should have to sacrifice during war time as it's bullshit to only expect those in uniform to make a huge sacrifice when the general public is to cheap and tight fisted to make a monetary sacrifice.

man i would buy some war bonds even..if they paid 5%!

[Momorider]

1 hour ago, Capt.Storm said:

yeah..he gets a little carried away at times.

They are complete failures, it's obvious they are doing it wrong  

[Capt.Storm]

1 minute ago, Momorider said:

They are complete failures, it's obvious they are doing it wrong  

this is pretty good.

 

[Boered]

44 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

this is pretty good.

 

Preaching isolationism. It will be tough on some but better for most.

[Mainecat]

1 hour ago, Highmark said:

 

I can tell you this mother fucker,  I've went thru 2 life or death situations with my kids since 2010, one this summer and I'm very fucking glad I was able to go to a place where my insurance let me instead of where Obamacare would have forced me.  I was glad that the doctors were not forced to lower pay because of a Sanders style HC system.   If you want to talk about HC choices lets go.   I've lived them with my kids so don't give me some bullshit comparison to Hillary Clinton's "experience"  

So answer my question.

[Sleepr2]

Act blue

[Highmark]

1 hour ago, Mainecat said:

So answer my question.

I answered your question you liberal elitest fuck.   Fall asleep and dont wake back up. 

Edited September 22, 2016 by Highmark

[racer254]

15 hours ago, Highmark said:

Well very good in the late 90's under Bill Clinton.   Tax cuts also did pretty good under JFK.   Would have worked wonders under GWB without stupid spending in Iraq and the housing crash which the blame is far and wide for.  

Tax revenue on average has historically raised with tax cuts.  Its not debatable.  

Exactly.

[Mainecat]

13 hours ago, Highmark said:

I answered your question you liberal elitest fuck.   Fall asleep and dont wake back up. 

No you never did.

I will ask again differently.

Your a businessman and your looking for a replacement for your company GM that just left. Hes responsible for lets say 20,000 employees. Why would you hire the guy at the McDonalds drive up window with zero experience to be GM of your company?

 

[SnowRider]

8 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Exactly.

  

 

EFFECT OF REAGAN, KENNEDY, AND BUSH TAX CUTS ON REVENUES

 

EFFECT OF REAGAN TAX CUTS ON REVENUES - SHORT ANALYSIS

The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.

Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up a lower 91.3 percent during the 80's. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which are directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. The reference to the doubling of revenues under Reagan commonly refers to TOTAL revenues. These include the above-mentioned Social Insurance revenues for which the tax rate went UP. It seems highly hypocritical to include these revenues (which were likely bolstered by the tax hike) as proof for the effectiveness of a tax cut.

Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them.

 

EFFECT OF REAGAN TAX CUTS ON REVENUES AND GDP - LONG ANALYSIhttp://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html

 

 

 

 

 

[Capt.Storm]

38 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

No you never did.

I will ask again differently.

Your a businessman and your looking for a replacement for your company GM that just left. Hes responsible for lets say 20,000 employees. Why would you hire the guy at the McDonalds drive up window with zero experience to be GM of your company?

 

so now trump works for mcdonalds?

Edited September 22, 2016 by Capt.Storm

[Edmo]

26 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

so know trump works for mcdonalds?

Guy's been kicking ass and taking names for 40 plus years as an exec. No experience there at all. 

How the hell anyone could want more of the same after what we've seen from the last few admins is mind boggling to me. 

[Zambroski]

3 minutes ago, Edmo said:

Guy's been kicking ass and taking names for 40 plus years as an exec. No experience there at all. 

How the hell anyone could want more of the same after what we've seen from the last few admins is mind boggling to me. 

What are you saying?  Some are enjoying the wealth and success of the last 8 years of racial equality.  They need to hurry and get these done, November 8th is coming and it's time for them to go to work on that day.

[Capt.Storm]

1 minute ago, Edmo said:

Guy's been kicking ass and taking names for 40 plus years as an exec. No experience there at all. 

How the hell anyone could want more of the same after what we've seen from the last few admins is mind boggling to me. 

Yeah,Hillary complaining about everything and i think it's starting to piss barry off some even since he's been the man for almost 8 years.

[ArcticCrusher]

48 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

No you never did.

I will ask again differently.

Your a businessman and your looking for a replacement for your company GM that just left. Hes responsible for lets say 20,000 employees. Why would you hire the guy at the McDonalds drive up window with zero experience to be GM of your company?

 

 

So you then hire your brother-in law with even less experience than the guy working the drive through to keep the wife happy.

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, ArcticCrusher said:

 

So you then hire your brother-in law with even less experience than the guy working the drive through to keep the wife happy.

He's having a problem drawing an analogy that 1.) makes sense and 2.) will work in his favor.  So, we are stuck trying to figure out what the fuck he's trying to say.  

[Highmark]

18 hours ago, Highmark said:

Moot question (you like that phrase) as I don't feel Hillary is more qualified to be POTUS given her past.   By "past" I do not mean the offices she held.  Honestly being a Senator doesn't mean shit to me, her time as SoS is more relevant of which was a complete train wreck.  Bad political experience is not better than no political experience. 

I would bet good money if Mark Cuban was the dem nominee and Jeb Bush the GOP nominee you would be singing a different tune.  

 

42 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

No you never did.

I will ask again differently.

Your a businessman and your looking for a replacement for your company GM that just left. Hes responsible for lets say 20,000 employees. Why would you hire the guy at the McDonalds drive up window with zero experience to be GM of your company?

 

Jesus are you brain dead?   Seriously MC go seek medical help.

Why is it you libs never answer questions and when we do you simply cannot accept the answer for what they are?  I'm beginning to think you and sno are brothers.  Vince at least has some sanity left.  

I'll say it again.   BAD EXPERIENCE IS NOT A QUALIFICATION.  Any relevant experience Hillary has is contaminated with poor performance, lies, deception and corruption.   On top of that I do not trust that she is healthy enough to be CIC.   So see your question is moot as it is suppose to be a correlation to Hillary and Trump of which I trust Trump's real world business leadership skills over anything Hillary did in political office.

Whats so funny is you use to tout how great it was Bernie was an "outsider."  

Do you even realize what a joke you are to people on this forum?

 

 

[Capt.Storm]

boy..chit be getting real yo!

[Zambroski]

5 minutes ago, Highmark said:

 

Jesus are you brain dead?   Seriously MC go seek medical help.

Why is it you libs never answer questions and when we do you simply cannot accept the answer for what they are?  I'm beginning to think you and sno are brothers.  Vince at least has some sanity left.  

I'll say it again.   BAD EXPERIENCE IS NOT A QUALIFICATION.  Any relevant experience Hillary has is contaminated with poor performance, lies, deception and corruption.   On top of that I do not trust that she is healthy enough to be CIC.   So see your question is moot as it is suppose to be a correlation to Hillary and Trump of which I trust Trump's real world business leadership skills over anything Hillary did in political office.

Whats so funny is you use to tout how great it was Bernie was an "outsider."  

Do you even realize what a joke you are to people on this forum?

 

 

Although I think the comparison to him and SR was a bit harsh.  

[racer254]

6 minutes ago, Highmark said:

 

Jesus are you brain dead?   Seriously MC go seek medical help.

Why is it you libs never answer questions and when we do you simply cannot accept the answer for what they are?  I'm beginning to think you and sno are brothers.  Vince at least has some sanity left.  

I'll say it again.   BAD EXPERIENCE IS NOT A QUALIFICATION.  Any relevant experience Hillary has is contaminated with poor performance, lies, deception and corruption.   On top of that I do not trust that she is healthy enough to be CIC.   So see your question is moot as it is suppose to be a correlation to Hillary and Trump of which I trust Trump's real world business leadership skills over anything Hillary did in political office.

Whats so funny is you use to tout how great it was Bernie was an "outsider."  

Do you even realize what a joke you are to people on this forum?

 

 

Unfortunately, the joke is on them.  They have been brainwashed for so long that they are starting to believe the bullshit from the left.  You can show example after example and answer all the questions in the world and all they do is bring up a meme or some opinion piece written by the relative of some advisor on the left and proclaim it to be the truth.  It happens everyday on here now.

[SnowRider]

58 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

  

 

EFFECT OF REAGAN, KENNEDY, AND BUSH TAX CUTS ON REVENUES

 

EFFECT OF REAGAN TAX CUTS ON REVENUES - SHORT ANALYSIS

The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.

Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up a lower 91.3 percent during the 80's. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which are directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. The reference to the doubling of revenues under Reagan commonly refers to TOTAL revenues. These include the above-mentioned Social Insurance revenues for which the tax rate went UP. It seems highly hypocritical to include these revenues (which were likely bolstered by the tax hike) as proof for the effectiveness of a tax cut.

Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them.

 

EFFECT OF REAGAN TAX CUTS ON REVENUES AND GDP - LONG ANALYSIhttp://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Highmark said:

 

Jesus are you brain dead?   Seriously MC go seek medical help.

Why is it you libs never answer questions and when we do you simply cannot accept the answer for what they are?  I'm beginning to think you and sno are brothers.  Vince at least has some sanity left.  

I'll say it again.   BAD EXPERIENCE IS NOT A QUALIFICATION.  Any relevant experience Hillary has is contaminated with poor performance, lies, deception and corruption.   On top of that I do not trust that she is healthy enough to be CIC.   So see your question is moot as it is suppose to be a correlation to Hillary and Trump of which I trust Trump's real world business leadership skills over anything Hillary did in political office.

Whats so funny is you use to tout how great it was Bernie was an "outsider."  

Do you even realize what a joke you are to people on this forum?

 

 

Speaking of never answering a question....you said revenues go,up after a tax cut - not debatable...??  . Amd your new forum friend Freeloader254 is riding your coattails and flapping his lips about being manipulated.  Once again the data does not support your opinion   

[SnowRider]

12 hours ago, SnowRider said:

 

Skidmark and Freelaoder are on locarion with MN Momo  

[ArcticCrusher]

7 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

 

Speaking of never answering a question....you said revenues go,up after a tax cut - not debatable...??  . Amd your new forum friend Freeloader254 is riding your coattails and flapping his lips about being manipulated.  Once again the data does not support your opinion   

So why not peg the tax rate at 80% then?

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/oecd-says-governments-cut-taxes-to-boost-growth-in-2015-1474534805