Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm sorry, Joe but even if you COULD tax the wealthy at 100% and they were stupid enough to keep working (which they wouldn't!) it wouldn't even come close to paying for the entitlements we now owe in the future.
sure it would. But we don't even have to go that far. Make the rich pay what they paid before Ronnie Ray-Gun fucked everything up, stop playing the world's policeman, stop sending billions to the Zionists or fighting their wars, and scrap these moronic free trade treaties, and there would be plenty of jobs to go around.
Also, go to single payer and get health care costs under control. That would also help.
Frankly, if we kept on the path the First PResident Clinton left for us, we'd be fine now.
Uh Joe, you understand that the rich paid MORE after Reagan's reforms than before, right? Lower tax rates encouraged higher earnings, which in turn brought in more revenue. Just like Supply Side predicted it would.I'm sorry, Joe but even if you COULD tax the wealthy at 100% and they were stupid enough to keep working (which they wouldn't!) it wouldn't even come close to paying for the entitlements we now owe in the future.
sure it would. But we don't even have to go that far. Make the rich pay what they paid before Ronnie Ray-Gun fucked everything up, stop playing the world's policeman, stop sending billions to the Zionists or fighting their wars, and scrap these moronic free trade treaties, and there would be plenty of jobs to go around.
Also, go to single payer and get health care costs under control. That would also help.
Frankly, if we kept on the path the First PResident Clinton left for us, we'd be fine now.
Dude, Bill Clinton's economic success was based on two things...the Dot Com Boom which brought in large sums of revenue to the Government coffers...and a Republican led House that wouldn't let him spend that money.
That you think "single payer" is going to get health care costs "under control" is illustrative of just how much of an idiot you are when it comes to economics, Joey!
By the way, Sparky...it was Bill Clinton that signed NAFTA into law...was THAT the "path" you were referring to?
Uh Joe, you understand that the rich paid MORE after Reagan's reforms than before, right? Lower tax rates encouraged higher earnings, which in turn brought in more revenue. Just like Supply Side predicted it would.
Oops.
Were taxes higher or lower at the end of Reagan's term than before?Uh Joe, you understand that the rich paid MORE after Reagan's reforms than before, right? Lower tax rates encouraged higher earnings, which in turn brought in more revenue. Just like Supply Side predicted it would.
Oops.
They paid more AFTER we figured out in the early 80's Supply Side didn't work and Reagan had to raise taxes after lowering them. But, no, the Rich still made out like bandits, as the tax burden was shifted to the working class.
Were taxes higher or lower at the end of Reagan's term than before?
Yeah, keep spinning, Joe.
Dude, Bill Clinton's economic success was based on two things...the Dot Com Boom which brought in large sums of revenue to the Government coffers...and a Republican led House that wouldn't let him spend that money.
Yes, I know that's what they told you on Hate Radio.
Were taxes higher or lower at the end of Reagan's term than before?
Yeah, keep spinning, Joe.
For who? for the rich, they were lower. For working class folks, they were higher. Especially after Ray-Gun raised the Social Security tax to 6 and 6%. (12% if you are self employed.)
THe more important thing, though, was that Reagan tripled the National debt in his 8 years, running up twice as much debt as his 39 predecessors combined. That's just all kinds of fucked up.
That you think "single payer" is going to get health care costs "under control" is illustrative of just how much of an idiot you are when it comes to economics, Joey!
You mean other than Japan, England, France, Italy, Germany h ave all done this and they spend half what we do as a percentage of GDP. The joy of being a conservatard is pretending the rest of the world hasn't already figured this out.
By the way, Sparky...it was Bill Clinton that signed NAFTA into law...was THAT the "path" you were referring to?
YOu mean he signed the shitty treaty Bush negotiated? Yeah. Dumb move.
OK so you admit that Reagan's policies worked in having the upper income groups paying more money to the Fed.Were taxes higher or lower at the end of Reagan's term than before?
Yeah, keep spinning, Joe.
For who? for the rich, they were lower. For working class folks, they were higher. Especially after Ray-Gun raised the Social Security tax to 6 and 6%. (12% if you are self employed.)
THe more important thing, though, was that Reagan tripled the National debt in his 8 years, running up twice as much debt as his 39 predecessors combined. That's just all kinds of fucked up.
don't listen to the radio.
The next thing you'll tell me is that the Dot Com Boom never happened...and that the GOP wasn't running Congress for the last six years of Clinton's two terms!
You exist in a parallel universe, Joey.
OK so you admit that Reagan's policies worked in having the upper income groups paying more money to the Fed.
Thanks.
I thought he had us on the "right path", Joey? The fact is that Clinton's team changed many of the things that H.W. Bush negotiated. I know it KILLS you to admit that Clinton was all in on NAFTA but he was! So much for you trying to blame the ensuing job losses on the GOP!
Compared to Barack Obama...Ronald Reagan was a miser with the Federal Budget. He added 1.86 Trillion to the deficit in eight years. Barry added 6.16 Trillion in only six years. Do you consider THAT "all kinds of fucked up"...or are we back in your parallel universe where 1.86 Trillion is more than 6.16 Trillion?
LOL. Yeah go with pure denial, Joe. It's all you've got.OK so you admit that Reagan's policies worked in having the upper income groups paying more money to the Fed.
Thanks.
Not really. But you keep trying to pretend that senile old fuck knew what he was doing.
Yeah presidents have zero ability to negotiate treaties. Go with that, Joe.I thought he had us on the "right path", Joey? The fact is that Clinton's team changed many of the things that H.W. Bush negotiated. I know it KILLS you to admit that Clinton was all in on NAFTA but he was! So much for you trying to blame the ensuing job losses on the GOP!
He wasn't all in on NAFTA. He was just stuck with a treaty someone else negotiated.
Yeah presidents have zero ability to negotiate treaties. Go with that, Joe.I thought he had us on the "right path", Joey? The fact is that Clinton's team changed many of the things that H.W. Bush negotiated. I know it KILLS you to admit that Clinton was all in on NAFTA but he was! So much for you trying to blame the ensuing job losses on the GOP!
He wasn't all in on NAFTA. He was just stuck with a treaty someone else negotiated.
Except every economist understands that it is a good thing. Or did you miss that day in Econ 101. Wait, you never took Econ 101. That explains a lot.Yeah presidents have zero ability to negotiate treaties. Go with that, Joe.I thought he had us on the "right path", Joey? The fact is that Clinton's team changed many of the things that H.W. Bush negotiated. I know it KILLS you to admit that Clinton was all in on NAFTA but he was! So much for you trying to blame the ensuing job losses on the GOP!
He wasn't all in on NAFTA. He was just stuck with a treaty someone else negotiated.
Zero Ability? No. Having to go back and renegotiate a treaty with two other countries who already thought they had a deal and a lot of people wanted? Yes, that would have been very difficult.
NAFTA wasn't that bad of a deal. Not as bad as a lot of the deals we did with China.
But let's be honest, both parties have drunk deep of the Free Trade Koolaid. Billionaires have spent a lot of money getting stupid people like you to think Free Trade is a good thing.
Except every economist understands that it is a good thing. Or did you miss that day in Econ 101. Wait, you never took Econ 101. That explains a lot.
