US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Lies about our national debt, W, Clinton and Reagan (its just accurate information)

This is a discussion on Lies about our national debt, W, Clinton and Reagan (its just accurate information) within the Politics forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Shaman Quote: Originally Posted by JRK Quote: Originally Posted by Dr.Drock Is the average middle class income american better off ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics

Politics Discuss government policies and candidates...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 01:54 PM
JRK JRK is offline
Registered User
Member #28394
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,488
Thanks: 850
Thanked 636 Times in 472 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 330
JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness
Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Shaman View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Dr.Drock View Post
Is the average middle class income american better off today than in 1980? or '84? or '88?


That question would be a fun one to hear the answers.

To hell with both status quo, middle class destroying political parties.
The middle class bring home pay is the best its ever been thanks to Ws tax rates.
.....Yeah, let's totally-disregard....
Quote:
The FACT is.....if we drop-back to the CLINTON-RATES.....

Quote:
.....the middle-class WON'T EVEN NOTICE!!!!
Quote:

"The 1993 budget legislation did increase federal tax receipts. One can not, however, draw from this the conclusion that taxes increased significantly for the majority of taxpayers. The 1993 changes in the tax code increased federal income tax rates only for high-income taxpayers.

The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax."

Bull shit
I made 70,000 in 01 and in 03 and it made 4000 in difference
look you want to give the govt that much more go for it, dont lie so i will have to
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 01:58 PM
JRK JRK is offline
Registered User
Member #28394
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,488
Thanks: 850
Thanked 636 Times in 472 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 330
JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness
Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Shaman View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
There is no better example of the type of spam that got Obama elected and made GWB out to be what many see him as
Yeah.......
Quote:
......HISTORICAL-DATA!!!!!!!
If it is so funny where is your historical data?
what you think 9% UE with 3 trillion dollars in additional debt is funny?
You living off of the tax payer?
you got kids?
I do not see anything funny about this situation we find our selves in

Let me add that W had a 5% UE rate for 8 years on avg
he added less debt in 8 years than BHO did in 18 months
historical data?
By the way that debt W had included 3 tax rebates
how much money did you get from Obama's stimulus?

Last edited by JRK; 03-25-2011 at 02:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JRK For This Useful Post:
Jroc (03-25-2011)
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 02:00 PM
kiwiman127's Avatar
Comfortably Moderate
Member #25493
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
Posts: 4,867
Thanks: 1,328
Thanked 1,560 Times in 1,108 Posts
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2088
kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute
kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by kiwiman127 View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post

My friend we have added 40 million jobs to our economy sense 1978
that information your using cannot be accurate
Jimmy Carter had an 18% inflation rate in 1978 and your claim is I would have made 10% more?
I would have to make 28% more
And if the value of the dollar is the reason then would not that one year be the biggest impact?

There is no way any-one can claim that the average Joe/Jane made 10% more as a middle class worker in 1977 than he did in 2004
no way

you have 40 million more people working in 2004 than you did in 1978

Women?
part time jobs?
Legal aliens?

Thats pure spam
"My friend we have added 40 million jobs to our economy sense 1978
that information your using cannot be accurate"

It's straight from the Department of Labor.
I'll tell you what, why not produce something that reflects the opposite to what The Dept of Labor is saying?
I did
its called common sense
You ask for it

Income Inequality: How Census Data Misrepresent Income Distribution
Published on September 29, 1999 by Rea Hederman, Jr. and Robert Rector CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS REPORT #99-07

Edit by Moderator: Please remember the copyright rules. NO posting of entire articles or even a large part of them, (one or two paragraphs is good) and source must be linked. Thx.
My numbers aren't from the Census but from the Department of Labor.
And Heritage? I remember reading one of their pieces arguing that wages weren't stagnant, their reasoning was "because wages hadn't decreased".
Try a resource that isn't partisan please. Did I use a partisan resource? No!
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 02:04 PM
JRK JRK is offline
Registered User
Member #28394
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,488
Thanks: 850
Thanked 636 Times in 472 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 330
JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness
Quote: Originally Posted by kiwiman127 View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by kiwiman127 View Post

"My friend we have added 40 million jobs to our economy sense 1978
that information your using cannot be accurate"

It's straight from the Department of Labor.
I'll tell you what, why not produce something that reflects the opposite to what The Dept of Labor is saying?
I did
its called common sense
You ask for it

Income Inequality: How Census Data Misrepresent Income Distribution
Published on September 29, 1999 by Rea Hederman, Jr. and Robert Rector CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS REPORT #99-07

Edit by Moderator: Please remember the copyright rules. NO posting of entire articles or even a large part of them, (one or two paragraphs is good) and source must be linked. Thx.
My numbers aren't from the Census but from the Department of Labor.
And Heritage? I remember reading one of their pieces arguing that wages weren't stagnant, their reasoning was "because wages hadn't decreased".
Try a resource that isn't partisan please. Did I use a partisan resource? No!
Yes
let me add that 1/2 truths are 1/2 truths every where you look
I agree that yu cannot just say that 1978 has anything to do with 2004
40 million jobs where added
that alone is a information that cannot be ignored
I agree heritage is 1/2 truth, but thats the 1/2 that makes that story a whole
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 02:09 PM
Mr. Shaman's Avatar
Senior Member
Member #23370
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 23,892
Thanks: 76
Thanked 1,758 Times in 1,559 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
Mr. Shaman has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Peepers View Post
Quote:
The middle class bring home pay is the best its ever been thanks to Ws tax rates. and if you take UE avg of 5% from the mid 80s till 2009 I am unsure how anyone can say that Regan's policies created the largest transfer of wealth
The hi end tax rate went from 39% to 35% (basically). So how hard would it be for the "rich" to increase the amount of wealth they have?

I mean if I get to keep 4% more wealth every year and I make 250,000 per year, thats 10,000.00
the Liberal media have wrote 1000s of columns calling that a transfer of wealth
[/url]
So, I'm gonna go ahead and call a massive BULLSHIT here.

THIS is what "trickle down", deregulation of the banking industry and the "conservative" corporatism disaster has wrought:

News Headlines

But we have a whole bunch of new millionaires, so all is good, right?
bullshit?
bullshit?
more millionaires because they keep more of there wealth
De regulation in the banking industry was in 1998 "Mr Bull Shit"
Glass

Clinton repeal of Glass-Steagall faulty as seen today
Written on March 17th, 2008 in Government Positions


This is just one of our articles referencing the financial crisis, crash of the housing market, subprime, and more:


Even as the Fed helped to stabilize the situation over the weekend, the stock market is down again on Monday morning. What is alarming from our standpoint is that CIT, Lehman, and National City Corporation all are down – by 25 to 31 percent as we write this. Liquidity questions surround Lehman after what we learned from Bear Sterns. Even JPMorgan needed help and considerations from the Fed to buy Bear Sterns for a reported $2 a share.

This issue now goes far beyond the mortgage blues of some lenders. There is no way that crazy wild-eyed mortgage brokers with lax standards could cause worldwide problems like this. President Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which had prevented the coupling of investment banking and lending. To be exact, on November 12, 1999, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. One of the effects of the repeal is it allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate. Economists have criticized the action.

WHAT DE REGULATION DID GWB DO? IF YOUR GOING TO VOTE DO SOME FUCKING HOME WORK PLEASE
Gee.....you (almost) got that one right!!

Clinton (no doubt) signed-off on the appropriations bill (where Gramm-Leach-Bliley was BURIED).....'cause Phil Gramm couldn't get the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act PASSED....on IT'S OWN MERIT, much EARLIER!!!!!

(You don't do a whole-lotta-research, do you?? )


@ 6:25 thru 12:00

*

Ya' got NOTHIN'!!!!!!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 02:21 PM
Mr. Shaman's Avatar
Senior Member
Member #23370
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 23,892
Thanks: 76
Thanked 1,758 Times in 1,559 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
Mr. Shaman has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by kiwiman127 View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post

My friend we have added 40 million jobs to our economy sense 1978
that information your using cannot be accurate
Jimmy Carter had an 18% inflation rate in 1978 and your claim is I would have made 10% more?
I would have to make 28% more
And if the value of the dollar is the reason then would not that one year be the biggest impact?

There is no way any-one can claim that the average Joe/Jane made 10% more as a middle class worker in 1977 than he did in 2004
no way

you have 40 million more people working in 2004 than you did in 1978

Women?
part time jobs?
Legal aliens?

Thats pure spam
"My friend we have added 40 million jobs to our economy sense 1978
that information your using cannot be accurate"

It's straight from the Department of Labor.
I'll tell you what, why not produce something that reflects the opposite to what The Dept of Labor is saying?
I did
its called common sense
You ask for it

Income Inequality: How Census Data Misrepresent Income Distribution
Published on September 29, 1999 by Rea Hederman, Jr. and Robert Rector CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS REPORT #99-07

Edit by Moderator: Please remember the copyright rules. NO posting of entire articles or even a large part of them, (one or two paragraphs is good) and source must be linked. Thx.

Inequality Statistics and Poverty Facts | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Aw, jeez.....a blog from.....

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 02:40 PM
Mr. Shaman's Avatar
Senior Member
Member #23370
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 23,892
Thanks: 76
Thanked 1,758 Times in 1,559 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
Mr. Shaman has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by auditor0007 View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by NYcarbineer View Post
Reagan made the country prosper by pumping a couple trillion dollars worth of borrowed stimulus into it.

Clinton paid the bills, and let the country's prosperity take care of itself.
One thing very few will acknowledge is the fact that they all stole from SS to make their budgets work. Even Clinton's surplus was only due to the fact that he also used excess SS funds to cover the budget. So in reality, even Clinton was running deficits.
....And, he was using S.S. bucks to pay-down The Debt, as well.....right??


Quote:
(You REALLY wanna compete with JRK, for ZERO credibility???? )
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 02:58 PM
Registered User
Member #20303
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,793
Thanks: 2
Thanked 321 Times in 264 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 26
beowolfe could own USMB beowolfe could own USMB beowolfe could own USMB beowolfe could own USMB beowolfe could own USMB beowolfe could own USMB
Quote: Originally Posted by auditor0007 View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by NYcarbineer View Post
Reagan made the country prosper by pumping a couple trillion dollars worth of borrowed stimulus into it.

Clinton paid the bills, and let the country's prosperity take care of itself.
One thing very few will acknowledge is the fact that they all stole from SS to make their budgets work. Even Clinton's surplus was only due to the fact that he also used excess SS funds to cover the budget. So in reality, even Clinton was running deficits.
Dude, you can't steal from SS. SS invests any excess funds into T-bills. That's the law. So, in reality Clinton wasn't running deficits when he had a balanced budget. When will you people wake up, research how things actually work, and quit paying attention to the wingnut talking heads trying to re-write history.
__________________
"The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice. And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice there is little we can do to change until we notice how failing to notice shapes our thoughts and deeds."
— Daniel Goleman

Last edited by beowolfe; 03-25-2011 at 03:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 03:00 PM
Mr. Shaman's Avatar
Senior Member
Member #23370
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 23,892
Thanks: 76
Thanked 1,758 Times in 1,559 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
Mr. Shaman has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Sallow View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by NYcarbineer View Post
Reagan made the country prosper by pumping a couple trillion dollars worth of borrowed stimulus into it.

Clinton paid the bills, and let the country's prosperity take care of itself.
Well yeah.

But the ability of the Conservative to recognize how math works..is very limited.

Think of it like faith. They have "faith" in the "invisible" hand of the deregulated "free" markets.
What de regulation?
you mean The repeal of glass/sea gall?
Hmm that would be Clinton's de regulation, which i happen to agree with
The greedy caused the mess, the repeal of this legislation allowed the greed to have a place to go to cause it.
.....And, then the greedy moved up to UBS!!!!

Quote:

"Shortly after George W. Bush was elected president, Congress and President Clinton were trying to pass a $384 billion omnibus spending bill, and while the debates swirled around the passage of this bill, Senator Phil Gramm clandestinely slipped a 262-page amendment into the omnibus appropriations bill titled: Commodity Futures Modernization Act. It is likely that few senators read this bill, if any. The essence of the act was the deregulation of derivatives trading (financial instruments whose value changes in response to the changes in underlying variables; the main use of derivatives is to reduce risk for one party). The legislation contained a provision -- lobbied for by Enron, a major campaign contributor to Gramm -- that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight. Basically, it gave way to the Enron debacle and ushered in the new era of unregulated securities. Interestingly enough, Gramm's wife, Wendy, had been part of the Enron board, and her salary and stock income brought in between $900,000 and $1.8 million to the Gramm household, prior to the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

In 2003, Gramm left the Senate to join UBS, which had acquired investment house PaineWebber due to his deregulation bill. At UBS, Gramm lobbied Congress, the Fed and the Treasury Department."

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 03:11 PM
Registered User
Member #15594
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,429
Thanks: 335
Thanked 247 Times in 192 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 53
onecut39 kicks locomotives off the tracks onecut39 kicks locomotives off the tracks onecut39 kicks locomotives off the tracks onecut39 kicks locomotives off the tracks onecut39 kicks locomotives off the tracks onecut39 kicks locomotives off the tracks onecut39 kicks locomotives off the tracks
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by kiwiman127 View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post

To start with your link is no good
I have no idea what your trying to say
are you saying during the worst inflation we have ever had in our countries history that people made more money than we did during the same time when gas was not much different than it was in 2008 at the end of Ws term and inflation was 18%
That people where making more per week when we had no inflation?
What the hell is this information mean?
with respect you act like that information means something
Do i understand that in 1978 with inflation @ 18% I would make 310.00 and in 2004 with inflation @ < 3% I would make 277.00?
HUH?
thats 50.00 SWING THERE
As Jimmy Carter stepped before the television cameras in the East Room of the White House last Friday, his task was not just to proclaim another new anti-inflation program but to calm a national alarm that had begun to border on panic. Inflation and interest rates, both topping 18%, are so far beyond anything that Americans have experienced in peacetime—and so far beyond anything that U.S. financial markets are set up to handle—as to inspire a contagion of fear. Usually confident businessmen and bankers have begun talking of Latin American-style hyperinflation, financial collapse, major bankruptcies, a drastic drop in the American standard of living.


Read more: Jimmy Carter vs. Inflation - TIME


Now in addition my tax rate from 2001 to 2004 allowed me to bring home about 4,000 more a year
in my pocket
now that was on a 65,000 year vs about a 70,000

My friend that information you have provided is worthless
there is no truth to it I do not care where you got it and more than that I would like to know what its suppose to mean
Hmm,,,? I see the link doesn't work now as I went there a did a copy & paste,,,maybe later. I see, I didn't copy the entire address.
What I was trying to say is, in fact wages have not gone up in "real dollars" since the 1980and that's despite excellent worker productivity and good overall profits. So it's pretty hard to be better off now than you were in 1980. Also, the tax cuts to corporations, the wealthy and with Capital Gains/Dividends did not make the lives of the middle class any better at all. In fact, the middle class has lost wealth while the top percentage has gained wealth.
The source of the numbers is the Department of Labor via the Bush Administration.
Try this: http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wage...ges+(1964-2004)
EDIT: Copy and past the link to Google's "all these words" or go to this link:

File:US Real Wages 1964-2004.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's the same story,,,working class wages have not improved and life for the working class has gotten worse.
My friend we have added 40 million jobs to our economy sense 1978
that information your using cannot be accurate
Jimmy Carter had an 18% inflation rate in 1978 and your claim is I would have made 10% more?
I would have to make 28% more
And if the value of the dollar is the reason then would not that one year be the biggest impact?

There is no way any-one can claim that the average Joe/Jane made 10% more as a middle class worker in 1977 than he did in 2004
no way

you have 40 million more people working in 2004 than you did in 1978

Women?
part time jobs?
Legal aliens?

Thats pure spam
Amazing! You really don't have a clue.
__________________
There are none so blind as those who will not see
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 03:12 PM
Registered User
Member #28498
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 474
Thanks: 16
Thanked 42 Times in 32 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 4
mnbasketball picked a bandwagon to follow mnbasketball picked a bandwagon to follow mnbasketball picked a bandwagon to follow mnbasketball picked a bandwagon to follow mnbasketball picked a bandwagon to follow mnbasketball picked a bandwagon to follow
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by kiwiman127 View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post

The middle class bring home pay is the best its ever been thanks to Ws tax rates. and if you take UE avg of 5% from the mid 80s till 2009 I am unsure how anyone can say that Regan's policies created the largest transfer of wealth
The hi end tax rate went from 39% to 35% (basically). So how hard would it be for the "rich" to increase the amount of wealth they have?

I mean if I get to keep 4% more wealth every year and I make 250,000 per year, thats 10,000.00
the Liberal media have wrote 1000s of columns calling that a transfer of wealth
I guess I have to post this again. I'm sorry I have to do this but some people live in such a fantasy world.

REAL WAGES
1964-2004
Average Weekly Earnings (in 1982 constant dollars)
For all private nonfarm workers
Year Real $ Change
1964 302.52
1965 310.46 2.62%
1966 312.83 0.76%
1967 311.30 -0.49%
1968 315.37 1.31%
1969 316.93 0.49%
1970 312.94 -1.26%
1971 318.05 1.63%
1972 331.59 4.26%
1973 331.39 -0.06%
1974 314.94 -4.96%
1975 305.16 -3.11%
1976 309.61 1.46%
1977 310.99 0.45%
1978 310.41 -0.19%
1979 298.87 -3.72%
1980 281.27 -5.89%
1981 277.35 -1.39%
1982 272.74 -1.66%
1983 277.50 1.75%
1984 279.22 0.62%
1985 276.23 -1.07%
1986 276.11 -0.04%
1987 272.88 -1.17%
1988 270.32 -0.94%
1989 267.27 -1.13%
1990 262.43 -1.81%
1991 258.34 -1.56%
1992 257.95 -0.15%
1993 258.12 0.07%
1994 259.97 0.72%
1995 258.43 -0.59%
1996 259.58 0.44%
1997 265.22 2.17%
1998 271.87 2.51%
1999 274.64 1.02%
2000 275.62 0.36%
2001 275.38 -0.09%
2002 278.91 1.28%
2003 279.94 0.37%
2004 277.57 -0.84%



Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wage...ges+(1964-2004)
There is no better example of the type of spam that got Obama elected and made GWB out to be what many see him as
Your table makes claim that the average pay in 1978 in a 40 hour week was $7.75 an hour and that in 2004 it was 6.92 an hour?
Cater had the 18% inflation?
so what ever this thing is trying to say then its Carters fault we are where we are?
Dude this is information that makes no sense
what was minimum wage in 2004?
a car in 2004 being bought with a 14,404 annual salary?
and why is it I am not a millionaire by making 310.00 a week the year I get out of high school?
Dude, you will never be making a million dollars a year income as stupid as you are. The figures are the amounts today if we were still in the first year of comparison.

25.00 hr today may only be 7.00 an hr in the first year in the same dollar figure. Otherwise hes saying that you can't buy anymore today then you could then, even though you may be making a hire amount per hr today.


Prior to the Vietnam war we used to run a family on one income, now we can't do it on two.

We have definitely lost value to the middle class, which has went to the top 20%, no doubt about it and it's going to get worse.


Under Ike we were at 100% of GDP to debt. Ike raised the tax brackets to a high of 91% and paid off half the national debt. Does anyone know who lowered the tax rates the most for any president?
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 03:24 PM
Mr. Shaman's Avatar
Senior Member
Member #23370
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 23,892
Thanks: 76
Thanked 1,758 Times in 1,559 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
Mr. Shaman has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Shaman View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post

why would people choose Clinton's over Ws?
what did W sit and watch happen?


(Try to make your next question a tough one. )
so 400 billion dollars in added defict with 2 wars and 6 major hurricanes along with 9-11 is something to gloat about?
and let us not forget that was done with a republican congress
Oh-yea
that 400 billion that W had that was more than Clintons?
Tax rebates

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion


here would be Ws
http://diplomatdc.files.wordpress.co...pg?w=400&h=330

For eight years many liberals complained about the Bush deficit and praised the Clinton surplus. They had an excellent point, but overlooked many key factors. Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment which will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. He increased federal education spending 58% faster than inflation. He was also the first President to spend 3% of GDP on federal anti-poverty programs. For some reason the left wing is no longer talking about the deficit.
The above graph does include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is of course included in the numbers above.
The Bush deficit declined significantly until early September of 2008 when the global economic crisis began.
BULLSHIT!!!!!

BUSHCO's DEBT started skyrocketing in 2006.....when Medicare D kicked-IN!!!!!

(diplomatdc.com/??? Really?? Someone's private, little Go Daddy domain??? )



__________________

Last edited by Mr. Shaman; 03-25-2011 at 03:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 03:27 PM
kiwiman127's Avatar
Comfortably Moderate
Member #25493
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
Posts: 4,867
Thanks: 1,328
Thanked 1,560 Times in 1,108 Posts
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2088
kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute
kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by kiwiman127 View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post

I did
its called common sense
You ask for it

Income Inequality: How Census Data Misrepresent Income Distribution
Published on September 29, 1999 by Rea Hederman, Jr. and Robert Rector CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS REPORT #99-07

Edit by Moderator: Please remember the copyright rules. NO posting of entire articles or even a large part of them, (one or two paragraphs is good) and source must be linked. Thx.
My numbers aren't from the Census but from the Department of Labor.
And Heritage? I remember reading one of their pieces arguing that wages weren't stagnant, their reasoning was "because wages hadn't decreased".
Try a resource that isn't partisan please. Did I use a partisan resource? No!
Yes
let me add that 1/2 truths are 1/2 truths every where you look
I agree that yu cannot just say that 1978 has anything to do with 2004
40 million jobs where added
that alone is a information that cannot be ignored
I agree heritage is 1/2 truth, but thats the 1/2 that makes that story a whole
Weren't many of those jobs part of dot.com era and didn't the GWB administration start counting part time jobs the same as full time jobs.
Here's a link to the Labor Participation Chart, just for a FYI.
File:US Labor Participation Rate.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 03:33 PM
Mr. Shaman's Avatar
Senior Member
Member #23370
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 23,892
Thanks: 76
Thanked 1,758 Times in 1,559 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
Mr. Shaman has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Shaman View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post

The middle class bring home pay is the best its ever been thanks to Ws tax rates.
.....Yeah, let's totally-disregard....


The FACT is.....if we drop-back to the CLINTON-RATES.....

Quote:
.....the middle-class WON'T EVEN NOTICE!!!!
Quote:

"The 1993 budget legislation did increase federal tax receipts. One can not, however, draw from this the conclusion that taxes increased significantly for the majority of taxpayers. The 1993 changes in the tax code increased federal income tax rates only for high-income taxpayers.

The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax."

Bull shit
I made 70,000 in 01 and in 03 and it made 4000 in difference
look you want to give the govt that much more go for it.
You've got some OTHER "trick" way o' paying-down
Lil' Dumbya's Credit Card balance??!!!




__________________
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 03:41 PM
Mr. Shaman's Avatar
Senior Member
Member #23370
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 23,892
Thanks: 76
Thanked 1,758 Times in 1,559 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
Mr. Shaman has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Shaman View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
There is no better example of the type of spam that got Obama elected and made GWB out to be what many see him as
Yeah.......
Quote:
......HISTORICAL-DATA!!!!!!!
If it is so funny where is your historical data?
Lemme guess.....you're hyper-text challenged, right??



Here......try this one:

....Seeing-as-how we're STILL talkin'-about "....what many see him as....".

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:36 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.