The Evidence is In!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pubs- stupidest, greediest, most bought off and misled party in the modern world. Don't believe in science or experts, believe in "common sense", the voice of god and high school grad demagogues, half believe the black president is a kenyan, muslim, MARXIST. Absolute idiocy. So it's not surprising cons are found to have an IQ ten points lower than libs, and at this point many psychologists wonder if conservatism these days is a sociopathy...the lack of history and politics knowledge and misinformation is scary. There ya go...

I think there's medication that could help you. Cognex, look into it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the Nth time....see post #104.

Better, have someone with a degree higher than your GED explain it to you.

Post 104 doesn't answer the question.

All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth.

You say it every time there's a recession, even though taxes were already lowered from the last recession.

You do realize that if cutting taxes is the only solution to getting out of recessions, then eventually taxes are at zero, hell,

fed income taxes are already at zero for half of America. 50% paying no income tax. Next round of GOP tax cuts, what?

60% paying no taxes? Then 70%, then 80%, then 90%?

Question for Conservatives:

What will the Right's plan be for getting us out of some recession in the future, when taxes are already at zero?

Earned Income Credits for Millionaires?????

Think, people.

"All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth."

I love it!

"All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth."

And when I blow your 'thought' out of the water...can I choose a doll from the top shelf???


"...that any new tax legislation enacted next year should meet the following three tests:

First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required. Early action could give us extra leverage, added results, and important insurance against recession. Too large a tax cut, of course, could result in inflation and insufficient future revenues — but the greater danger is a tax cut too little, or too late, to be effective.

Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption, as well as investment. Consumers are still spending between 92 and 94 percent on their after-tax income, as they have every year since 1950. But that after-tax income could and should be greater, providing stronger markets for the products of American industry. When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid-off, investment increases, and profits are high.

Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. We have done this through the 1962 investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances — two essential parts of our first step in tax revision — which amounted to a ten percent reduction in corporate income taxes worth 2.5 billion dollars. Now we need to increase consumer demand to make these measures fully effective — demand which will make more use of existing capacity and thus increase both profits and the incentive to invest. In fact, profits after taxes would be at least 15 percent higher today if we were operating at full employment.

For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.

Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base, and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges. These steps are not only needed to recover lost revenue and thus make possible a larger cut in present rates, they are also tied directly to our goal of greater growth. For the present patchwork of special provisions and preferences lightens the tax loads of some only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on others. It distorts economic judgments and channels undue amounts of energy into efforts to avoid tax liability. It makes certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings. All this inhibits our growth and efficiency, as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service."

OK...get ready.....here comes the best part!!!!



"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."


OK...Proves the case for "....you people on the Right.."???

Guess, who am I quoting?? C'mon...take a guess....no one expects you to be right anyway...

Here, look it up:American Rhetoric: John F. Kennedy - Address to the Economic Club of New York

Those damn right-wingers!!!

""All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth."

I LOVE it!

Gee...I may be in trouble if you ever learn how to read, eh?

Nothing you said refutes anything I said, and I know that without reading it.

You want to invoke JFK, fine. If JFK had it right, why didn't Reagan leave those rates alone?

 

[HenryBHough]

Documentation? LOL!
Let's see his GPA and his test scores.

Now, now, now....those are safely stored alongside his student loan records and birth certificate....probably written in berry juice on the bark of some Kenyan bush. See, even that he can blame on Bush!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Idiot. They would work if the idiots like obamaturd would stop the spending. Obamaturd=not good.

Reagan and Bush didn't stop the spending. They borrowed their presidencies' prosperity.

And you oppose that.

So why do you think it's okay for Obama to do it? Well, never mind the fact that there hasn't been any Obama prosperity.

I never said it was okay for Obama to do it. I've always said make the people PAY for the government they get when they get it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I strongly suggest that you educate yourself....

"And no, I'm not going to buy that line of BS."

Learned that technique in a Liberal school, eh?

Sure is a great time saver, not reading....

Yeah, I don't read comic books either.

Both are about equally factual.

At least comic books are entertaining.

Leftie...don't you realize that you are validating the charicature of the left??

Ignorant, anti-intellectual....
...how do you know it isn't factual if you haven't read it????


I must tell you...for me, it is enlightening to read books written by the other side...

this is why the Left has let you down, you don't examine all perspectives.

From Coulter:
"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"

And you just proved it.

Why don't you come out from behind Ann Coulter's vagina and debate with some FACTS for a change?

 

[Vast LWC]

Documentation? LOL!
Let's see his GPA and his test scores.

Now, now, now....those are safely stored alongside his student loan records and birth certificate....probably written in berry juice on the bark of some Kenyan bush. See, even that he can blame on Bush!

Yeah... his entire history is a fake. That's a theory.

Ranks up right alongside "Elvis is alive and living on Jupiter" or "Bush blew up the WTC".

Glad to see the "National Enquirer" staff has taken over the RNC.

 

[daveman]

There is no mutual exclusion there. "Intellectual", as used today, doesn't necessarily mean "intelligent".

While I agree with that, most people wouldn't try to paint an idiot as an "intellectual elitist" as a political tactic. It just wouldn't hold much water.

It does when the intellectual in question is, in fact, an idiot.

 

[daveman]

Reagan and Bush didn't stop the spending. They borrowed their presidencies' prosperity.

And you oppose that.

So why do you think it's okay for Obama to do it? Well, never mind the fact that there hasn't been any Obama prosperity.

I never said it was okay for Obama to do it. I've always said make the people PAY for the government they get when they get it.

I've never seen you condemn Obama for it.

Come to think of it, I've never seen you condemn Obama for anything...

 

[daveman]

Yeah, I don't read comic books either.

Both are about equally factual.

At least comic books are entertaining.

Leftie...don't you realize that you are validating the charicature of the left??

Ignorant, anti-intellectual....
...how do you know it isn't factual if you haven't read it????


I must tell you...for me, it is enlightening to read books written by the other side...

this is why the Left has let you down, you don't examine all perspectives.

From Coulter:
"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"

And you just proved it.

Why don't you come out from behind Ann Coulter's vagina and debate with some FACTS for a change?

Gasp. Another misogynist leftist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And you oppose that.

So why do you think it's okay for Obama to do it? Well, never mind the fact that there hasn't been any Obama prosperity.

I never said it was okay for Obama to do it. I've always said make the people PAY for the government they get when they get it.

I've never seen you condemn Obama for it.

Come to think of it, I've never seen you condemn Obama for anything...

I wish you'd stop lying.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/145794-lookin-for-that-apology-20.html

Just read ALL my posts in that thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Leftie...don't you realize that you are validating the charicature of the left??

Ignorant, anti-intellectual....
...how do you know it isn't factual if you haven't read it????


I must tell you...for me, it is enlightening to read books written by the other side...

this is why the Left has let you down, you don't examine all perspectives.

From Coulter:
"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"

And you just proved it.

Why don't you come out from behind Ann Coulter's vagina and debate with some FACTS for a change?

Gasp. Another misogynist leftist.

Another pathetic Romeo who thinks defending PC's 'honor' will get him a sniff.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Documentation? LOL!
Let's see his GPA and his test scores.

Now, now, now....those are safely stored alongside his student loan records and birth certificate....probably written in berry juice on the bark of some Kenyan bush. See, even that he can blame on Bush!

Yeah... his entire history is a fake. That's a theory.

Ranks up right alongside "Elvis is alive and living on Jupiter" or "Bush blew up the WTC".

Glad to see the "National Enquirer" staff has taken over the RNC.

Fake? Just because he won't release his transcripts?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Leftie...don't you realize that you are validating the charicature of the left??

Ignorant, anti-intellectual....
...how do you know it isn't factual if you haven't read it????


I must tell you...for me, it is enlightening to read books written by the other side...

this is why the Left has let you down, you don't examine all perspectives.

From Coulter:
"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"

And you just proved it.

Ahh, I see.

You're equating the fact that I don't want to read the amazing tales of fiction that you listed, with a lack of desire to consume reading material from a wide range of viewpoints.

Happily, that is not the case.

What is the case is that I feel that hyperbolic works of utter fiction are not worthy of my time, whether they come from the extreme left, right, or from extremist Star Trek fans trying to write a novel that bashes Star Wars as inferior.

Which is why I equated the reading material you mentioned with such Leftward-leaning works of fiction as Farenheit 9/11.

And Coulter is a prime example of an extremist fiction writer, though I am ashamed to admit, I did read most of "Slander" some time ago, before I discovered her true nature. At least her revisionist history was entertaining, if nothing else.

"...hyperbolic works of utter fiction ..."

1. DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century [Hardcover]
Paul Kengor
Based on never-before-published FBI files, Soviet archives, and other primary sources, Dupes exposes the legions of liberals who have furthered the objectives of America’s adversaries. Kengor shows not only how such dupes contributed to history’s most destructive ideology—Communism, which claimed at least 100 million lives—but also why they are so relevant to today’s politics.

"...the amazing tales of fiction that you listed,..."

2. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin
Vasili Nikitich Mitrokhin worked as chief archivist for the FCD, the foreign-intelligence arm of the KGB. Mitrokhin was responsible for checking and sealing approximately 300,000 files, allowing him unrestricted access to one of the world's most closely guarded archives. He had lost faith in the Soviet system over the years, and was especially disturbed by the KGB's systematic silencing of dissidents at home and abroad. Faced with tough choices--stay silent, resign, or undermine the system from within--Mitrokhin decided to compile a record of the foreign operations of the KGB. Every day for 12 years, he smuggled notes out of the archive. He started by hiding scraps of paper covered with miniscule handwriting in his shoes, but later wrote notes on ordinary office paper, which he took home in his pockets.

"I equated the reading material you mentioned with such Leftward-leaning works of fiction as Farenheit 9/11."

You have become today's winner in the category of unintentional humor!
Bravo!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Intellectually, liberals are weak.

Strange then, that conservatives are always trying to paint them as "Intellectual Elitists" then...

So, are Liberals stupid or elitist intellectuals, which is it?

You misunderstand the terminology. The term is used as a pejorative.

From Dr. Thomas Sowell...

1. He first examined the conflict between a “constrained” vision of politics and social change and a vision of society by which intellectuals (“the anointed”) seek permanent “solutions” to social and national problems. Modern intellectuals, Sowell writes, have a “vision of themselves as a self-appointed vanguard, leading towards a better world.”

2. Unlike advocates of the more conservative, constrained vision, this intellectual vanguard tends to take the “benefits of civilization for granted.” The “vision of the anointed” lacks respect for the wisdom inherent in experience and common opinion. Its practitioners value abstractions—dreams for a peaceful, egalitarian world where conflicts have been overcome—over the “tacit knowledge” available to the parent, the consumer, the entrepreneur, and the citizen.
Intellectuals and Society, by Thomas Sowell (Basic Books, 416 pp., $29.95)
An Independent Mind by Daniel J. Mahoney, City Journal 18 June 2010

 

[PoliticalChic]

Post 104 doesn't answer the question.

All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth.

You say it every time there's a recession, even though taxes were already lowered from the last recession.

You do realize that if cutting taxes is the only solution to getting out of recessions, then eventually taxes are at zero, hell,

fed income taxes are already at zero for half of America. 50% paying no income tax. Next round of GOP tax cuts, what?

60% paying no taxes? Then 70%, then 80%, then 90%?

Question for Conservatives:

What will the Right's plan be for getting us out of some recession in the future, when taxes are already at zero?

Earned Income Credits for Millionaires?????

Think, people.

"All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth."

I love it!

"All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth."

And when I blow your 'thought' out of the water...can I choose a doll from the top shelf???


"...that any new tax legislation enacted next year should meet the following three tests:

First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required. Early action could give us extra leverage, added results, and important insurance against recession. Too large a tax cut, of course, could result in inflation and insufficient future revenues — but the greater danger is a tax cut too little, or too late, to be effective.

Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption, as well as investment. Consumers are still spending between 92 and 94 percent on their after-tax income, as they have every year since 1950. But that after-tax income could and should be greater, providing stronger markets for the products of American industry. When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid-off, investment increases, and profits are high.

Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. We have done this through the 1962 investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances — two essential parts of our first step in tax revision — which amounted to a ten percent reduction in corporate income taxes worth 2.5 billion dollars. Now we need to increase consumer demand to make these measures fully effective — demand which will make more use of existing capacity and thus increase both profits and the incentive to invest. In fact, profits after taxes would be at least 15 percent higher today if we were operating at full employment.

For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.

Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base, and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges. These steps are not only needed to recover lost revenue and thus make possible a larger cut in present rates, they are also tied directly to our goal of greater growth. For the present patchwork of special provisions and preferences lightens the tax loads of some only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on others. It distorts economic judgments and channels undue amounts of energy into efforts to avoid tax liability. It makes certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings. All this inhibits our growth and efficiency, as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service."

OK...get ready.....here comes the best part!!!!



"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."


OK...Proves the case for "....you people on the Right.."???

Guess, who am I quoting?? C'mon...take a guess....no one expects you to be right anyway...

Here, look it up:American Rhetoric: John F. Kennedy - Address to the Economic Club of New York

Those damn right-wingers!!!

""All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth."

I LOVE it!

Gee...I may be in trouble if you ever learn how to read, eh?

Nothing you said refutes anything I said, and I know that without reading it.

You want to invoke JFK, fine. If JFK had it right, why didn't Reagan leave those rates alone?

OMG....

"... I know that without reading it."


This couldn't be better if I wrote your lines for you!


"...I know that without reading it."


Your new sig!

 

[NYcarbineer]

"All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth."

I love it!

"All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth."

And when I blow your 'thought' out of the water...can I choose a doll from the top shelf???


"...that any new tax legislation enacted next year should meet the following three tests:

First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required. Early action could give us extra leverage, added results, and important insurance against recession. Too large a tax cut, of course, could result in inflation and insufficient future revenues — but the greater danger is a tax cut too little, or too late, to be effective.

Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption, as well as investment. Consumers are still spending between 92 and 94 percent on their after-tax income, as they have every year since 1950. But that after-tax income could and should be greater, providing stronger markets for the products of American industry. When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid-off, investment increases, and profits are high.

Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. We have done this through the 1962 investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances — two essential parts of our first step in tax revision — which amounted to a ten percent reduction in corporate income taxes worth 2.5 billion dollars. Now we need to increase consumer demand to make these measures fully effective — demand which will make more use of existing capacity and thus increase both profits and the incentive to invest. In fact, profits after taxes would be at least 15 percent higher today if we were operating at full employment.

For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.

Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base, and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges. These steps are not only needed to recover lost revenue and thus make possible a larger cut in present rates, they are also tied directly to our goal of greater growth. For the present patchwork of special provisions and preferences lightens the tax loads of some only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on others. It distorts economic judgments and channels undue amounts of energy into efforts to avoid tax liability. It makes certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings. All this inhibits our growth and efficiency, as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service."

OK...get ready.....here comes the best part!!!!



"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."


OK...Proves the case for "....you people on the Right.."???

Guess, who am I quoting?? C'mon...take a guess....no one expects you to be right anyway...

Here, look it up:American Rhetoric: John F. Kennedy - Address to the Economic Club of New York

Those damn right-wingers!!!

""All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth."

I LOVE it!

Gee...I may be in trouble if you ever learn how to read, eh?

Nothing you said refutes anything I said, and I know that without reading it.

You want to invoke JFK, fine. If JFK had it right, why didn't Reagan leave those rates alone?

OMG....

"... I know that without reading it."


This couldn't be better if I wrote your lines for you!


"...I know that without reading it."


Your new sig!

Your track record has doomed your credibility. No one cares to read excruciatingly long posts, unoriginal ones at that,

when their prior experience with that poster has been that the long posts have extremely low odds of saying anything.

I suggest you do what I suggested you do months ago. Try to be concise. Most good points can be made in two or three sentences.

For example, it didn't take me ten paragraphs of gibberish to prove that you were full of shit when you said that Reagan reduced the size of government.

BOOM!!

 

[daveman]

I never said it was okay for Obama to do it. I've always said make the people PAY for the government they get when they get it.

I've never seen you condemn Obama for it.

Come to think of it, I've never seen you condemn Obama for anything...

I wish you'd stop lying.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/145794-lookin-for-that-apology-20.html

Just read ALL my posts in that thread.

Nope. How about you link to a single post or two?

But let me guess: You criticize Obama for not being moonbat enough.

 

[daveman]

Why don't you come out from behind Ann Coulter's vagina and debate with some FACTS for a change?

Gasp. Another misogynist leftist.

Another pathetic Romeo who thinks defending PC's 'honor' will get him a sniff.

Naaah, just pointing out the usual leftist hatred of conservative women.

What do you hate about her specifically? The fact she's smarter than you? Tougher than you? Could probably kick your ass in a fight?

 

[daveman]

Nothing you said refutes anything I said, and I know that without reading it.

You want to invoke JFK, fine. If JFK had it right, why didn't Reagan leave those rates alone?

OMG....

"... I know that without reading it."


This couldn't be better if I wrote your lines for you!


"...I know that without reading it."


Your new sig!

Your track record has doomed your credibility. No one cares to read excruciatingly long posts, unoriginal ones at that,

when their prior experience with that poster has been that the long posts have extremely low odds of saying anything.

I suggest you do what I suggested you do months ago. Try to be concise. Most good points can be made in two or three sentences.

For example, it didn't take me ten paragraphs of gibberish to prove that you were full of shit when you said that Reagan reduced the size of government.

BOOM!!

Concise? You mean like when you told me to read a 500+ post thread and pick out your posts?

Let me guess. That's different. Somehow. It just is.