The Logic of ConservaRepub on Economy, UnEmployment & A Helping Hand from Govt.

[Rshermr]

So, you want to decrease taxes and decrease regulations. Show me when this has ever helped a bad economy in terms of decreasing unemployment. Because I can show the opposite, on more than one occasion.

I'd love to see your examples.

Reagan, 1981, largest tax decrease in history. August, 1981. By November of 1982, unemployment had reached 10.8% from 7.4% when the tax decrease went into effect. Deficits went through the roof, with all time high increase in the deficit in 1982.
So, to counteract these problems, reagan borrowed (tripled the size of the national debt) and increased taxes 11 times. All of which provided a great deal of money to spend, much on stimulus projects.
Clinton decreased taxes, and spent to get the economy moving. Remember the famous Clinton stump speech saying, "it's the economy, stupid". That was a statement about the economic problems that Bush 1 was facing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So your theory is "all those taxes and regulations" and not the fact that the consumer class has had stagnant wages for years now and thus weakened purchasing power is the problem?

I guess I could listen to your theory that shows how increasing taxes and regulations will raise wages.....

Funny, I don't remember saying that. Feel free to link me to it. I'd love to read about my own opinion.

Do you always get so defensive when you have no answer for a simple question?

Funny, I don't remember saying that.

Obama seems to think it. I disagree. What do you think?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, you want to decrease taxes and decrease regulations. Show me when this has ever helped a bad economy in terms of decreasing unemployment. Because I can show the opposite, on more than one occasion.

I'd love to see your examples.

Reagan, 1981, largest tax decrease in history. August, 1981. By November of 1982, unemployment had reached 10.8% from 7.4% when the tax decrease went into effect. Deficits went through the roof, with all time high increase in the deficit in 1982.
All of which provided a great deal of money to spend, much on stimulus projects.
Clinton decreased taxes, and spent to get the economy moving. Remember the famous Clinton stump speech saying, "it's the economy, stupid". That was a statement about the economic problems that Bush 1 was facing.

Reagan, 1981, largest tax decrease in history. August, 1981. By November of 1982, unemployment had reached 10.8% from 7.4% when the tax decrease went into effect.

This is your proof that his phased in tax cuts hurt the economy? Seriously?

So, to counteract these problems, reagan borrowed (tripled the size of the national debt) and increased taxes 11 times.

And after all his tax increases, the top rate moved from 70% all the way up to 28%.

All of which provided a great deal of money to spend, much on stimulus projects.

You're claiming that Reagan's deficit spending boosted the economy, not his tax cuts?
So why hasn't Obama's much larger amount of deficit spending boosted the economy?
Maybe if Obama also reduced the top bracket rate by 60% (14% would be the new top rate), he could get some decent growth?
I'm sure the House would go along with that plan.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Corporations hold their earnings overseas and pay no US taxes? That's a shocker.

Those poor mega corporations with their endless record-breaking profits every quarter yet they can still afford to run our country and pay for misleading info, etc. and some swallow it hook and sinker. Get real!!

It's awful! We should raise their taxes, that'll encourage them to bring the money to the US. What rate should we charge them? 60%? 70%? Higher?

If one benefits from selling a service or good in this country they should pay taxes for having access to US consumers, who also pay taxes. Are these businesses special somehow?

 

[daveman]

Corporations hold their earnings overseas and pay no US taxes? That's a shocker.

Those poor mega corporations with their endless record-breaking profits every quarter yet they can still afford to run our country and pay for misleading info, etc. and some swallow it hook and sinker. Get real!!

It's awful! We should raise their taxes, that'll encourage them to bring the money to the US. What rate should we charge them? 60%? 70%? Higher?

Liberals figuratively beat their dogs, then wonder why they run away.

 

[Fordsflylow]

It's awful! We should raise their taxes, that'll encourage them to bring the money to the US. What rate should we charge them? 60%? 70%? Higher?

Actually, we should strengthen those who drive the economy and purchase products (the middle class). THAT will attract business here, nothing else.

Yes, we should make it more attractive to start a business here.
Of course that would involve reducing regulations and cutting our highest in the world corporate tax rates.
The exact opposite of what Obama wants.

Oh yah right! lol Who needs clean water, clean air, health, food, etc!?! As well, who needs protection from being fleeced, ripped off, etc. by those biz's who charge an inflated price for crap or worse like it was prior to reg's, OR what worker benefits from reg's for handling or breathing dangerous chem's, worker's safety, etc. Lets not forget those beloved banks and all their bs, skirting the reg's that have no teeth in them because they're above those law's they themselves weakened or just plain ignore.

We should have the highest tax rates for any biz that is privileged enough access to our markets which are #1 in the world. Got to pay to play!!

 

[daveman]

during the abama administration, there has been a major effort to decrease regulations.

Utter nonsense.

“Despite the weak economy, the Obama Administration continued to increase the regulatory burden on Americans in 2011, adding 32 major regulations that increase regulatory burdens, almost $10 billion in annual costs, and $6.6 billion in one-time implementation costs. From the beginning of the Obama Administration through 2011, a staggering 106 major regulations that increase regulatory burdens have been issued, with costs exceeding $46 billion. While the President has acknowledged the need to rein in regulation, the steps taken to date have been meager.”

“During the three years of the Obama Administration, a total of 106 new major regulations have been imposed at a cost of more than $46 billion annually, and nearly $11 billion in one-time implementation costs. This amount is about five times the cost imposed by the prior Administration of George W. Bush.”​

Obama Regulation Overview Yields a Phony Four Reforms - Bob Beauprez - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

 

[Fordsflylow]

So your theory is "all those taxes and regulations" and not the fact that the consumer class has had stagnant wages for years now and thus weakened purchasing power is the problem?

I guess I could listen to your theory that shows how increasing taxes and regulations will raise wages.....

Funny, I don't remember saying that. Feel free to link me to it. I'd love to read about my own opinion.

Do you always get so defensive when you have no answer for a simple question?

I have yet to meet a diehard con ever think he/she/ is wrong AND they think they know all there is to know and see no need in learning anymore.

 

[daveman]

Actually, we should strengthen those who drive the economy and purchase products (the middle class). THAT will attract business here, nothing else.

Yes, we should make it more attractive to start a business here.
Of course that would involve reducing regulations and cutting our highest in the world corporate tax rates.
The exact opposite of what Obama wants.

Oh yah right! lol Who needs clean water, clean air, health, food, etc!?! As well, who needs protection from being fleeced, ripped off, etc. by those biz's who charge an inflated price for crap or worse like it was prior to reg's, OR what worker benefits from reg's for handling or breathing dangerous chem's, worker's safety, etc. Lets not forget those beloved banks and all their bs, skirting the reg's that have no teeth in them because they're above those law's they themselves weakened or just plain ignore.

We should have the highest tax rates for any biz that is privileged enough access to our markets which are #1 in the world. Got to pay to play!!

Charge them too much, and they won't play at all.

Moron.

 

[Rshermr]

during the abama administration, there has been a major effort to decrease regulations.

Utter nonsense.

“Despite the weak economy, the Obama Administration continued to increase the regulatory burden on Americans in 2011, adding 32 major regulations that increase regulatory burdens, almost $10 billion in annual costs, and $6.6 billion in one-time implementation costs. From the beginning of the Obama Administration through 2011, a staggering 106 major regulations that increase regulatory burdens have been issued, with costs exceeding $46 billion. While the President has acknowledged the need to rein in regulation, the steps taken to date have been meager.”

“During the three years of the Obama Administration, a total of 106 new major regulations have been imposed at a cost of more than $46 billion annually, and nearly $11 billion in one-time implementation costs. This amount is about five times the cost imposed by the prior Administration of George W. Bush.”​

Obama Regulation Overview Yields a Phony Four Reforms - Bob Beauprez - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

Brilliant, Daveman. Go to a con web site that typically quotes the type of drivel you love, and use it a source. I may send you a quote or two from moveon.

Dipshit.

The Obama Administration's Regulatory Reform Initiative

Last January, the Obama Administration announced a major regulatory review initiative. In its executive order, the administration directed federal agencies, among other things, to “consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” The announcement caused some consternation among progressives, including many environmental law professors. Many wondered why, at a time when regulatory gaps are a huge problem (see, e.g., climate change or regulation of toxic substances), the president was echoing some of the anti-regulatory rhetoric more commonly associated with his Republican critics.
Environmental Law Prof Blog: The Obama Administration's Regulatory Reform Initiative

Yes, the Obama administration's regulatory reform proposals will help spur private sector job growth by identifying the regulations that fail to efficiently protect American families and then reforming or removing them.
The Obama Administration's Regulatory Reform Proposals Will Spur Private Sector Job Growth | Brookings Institution


Administration Regulatory Reform To Save Health System $5 Billion ...
thinkprogress.org/.../administration-regulatory-reform-to-save-health.

 

[Rshermr]

Obama wants nothing more than to add taxes and regulations.
I wonder why the recovery is so anemic?
Despite his additional $5 trillion in deficit spending.

All I see from the conservative standpoint is that raising taxes are bad, lowering them is good, reducing regulations is good, increasing them is bad; Obama is raising taxes; obama is increasing regulations.

Any proof to any of these statements?? In a bad economy, is there any proof that decreasing taxes has helped unemployment?

During the obama administration, I have seen plenty of tax decreases. Where are the increases you are concerned about?
during the abama administration, there has been a major effort to decrease regulations. What new regulations are you concerned about?

So, you want to decrease taxes and decrease regulations. Show me when this has ever helped a bad economy in terms of decreasing unemployment. Because I can show the opposite, on more than one occasion.

All I see from the conservative standpoint is that raising taxes are bad, lowering them is good, reducing regulations is good, increasing them is bad; Obama is raising taxes; obama is increasing regulations.

Yes, conservatives think overregulation is bad, taxes are high enough and Obama is taking the country in the wrong direction.

Recent polls indicate that 63% of likely voters think the country is on the wrong track.

In a bad economy, is there any proof that decreasing taxes has helped unemployment?

In 1981, Reagan's phased in tax cuts reduced the top rate from 70% to 50%. Unemployment peaked at 10.8% at the end of 1982 and by the 1984 election were 7.2%.

During the obama administration, I have seen plenty of tax decreases.

Which ones were you seeing?

Where are the increases you are concerned about?

He wants to raise the tax on capital gains, on dividends, on corporations, on the "rich" and I even heard a rumor that Obamacare is really a tax hike. Luckily, cap and trade is dead.

during the abama administration, there has been a major effort to decrease regulations.

OMG! That's funny.

In a bad economy, is there any proof that decreasing taxes has helped unemployment?

Toddsterpatriot responds: In 1981, Reagan's phased in tax cuts reduced the top rate from 70% to 50%. Unemployment peaked at 10.8% at the end of 1982 and by the 1984 election were 7. 2%.


Here is the thing, toddster. You need to exhibit a bit of integrity. Like the truth, you know. As I have already proved to you in a different post, you forget a good deal of what happened between the tax decrease becoming active (August 81) and the last two months of 82. Like, for instance, the greatest gain in the national debt to that point in time, and tax INCREASES (several by Nov 84). And he spent, and he hired public employees. So, looks to me quite obvious that the tax cuts did not work. Only someone who REALLY wants to believe that would believe tax cuts helped Reagan. If you still don't want to admit it, then tell us all why Reagan raised taxes 11 times and borrowed enough to triple the national debt.

During the obama administration, I have seen plenty of tax decreases.

Toddsterpatriot responds: Which ones were you seeing?

follow this link to see Politifact discuss claimed 17 tax cuts for small business, for example:
PolitiFact | DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz says Obama has signed bills with 17 small business tax cuts

According to the dept of revenue, tax rates are lower than at any time since the early 1950's for all tax rates. So, what are you talking about.



Where are the increases you are concerned about?


Toddsterpatriot responds: He wants to raise the tax on capital gains, on dividends, on corporations, on the "rich" and I even heard a rumor that Obamacare is really a tax hike. Luckily, cap and trade is dead.

Corporations. really. Got any proof. On the rich, yes. He wants to sunset the bush tax cuts that were to have ended 2 years ago. On over $250k. On the margin, of course. By 3 whole percent. That's a killer, right. Back to the Clinton rates on those higher level earners, when you may remember, we had a balanced budget and killer economy. That would apply to corporations also, but there are no proposals relative to corporations separately
Capital gains and dividends? Any proof ot that??

What is funny is that you are blaming obama for the requirement that everyone pays, which was a Republican idea. And part of Romneycare. Same for cap and trade. A republican proposal that they now pretend they always hated. Problem is, they are on the record.
So, no new taxes, but some proposed ones. Integrity is a good thing. You should consider it.

during the abama administration, there has been a major effort to decrease regulations.

Toddsterpatriot responds:OMG! That's funny.

You should get out more often, Toddster. It is all over the internet. If you just follow fox and the other right wing sights, they will never tell you. Google obama regulation decreases and see what you find.
White House to Scale Back Regulations on Businesses - WSJ.com
online.wsj.com/.../SB1000142405311190427900457652487030761..

If I were lied to as often as you have obviously been, I would be really pissed at those trying to lead me astray. As would any progressive. Funny thing to me is that cons don't seem to mind. Do you???

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Those poor mega corporations with their endless record-breaking profits every quarter yet they can still afford to run our country and pay for misleading info, etc. and some swallow it hook and sinker. Get real!!

It's awful! We should raise their taxes, that'll encourage them to bring the money to the US. What rate should we charge them? 60%? 70%? Higher?

If one benefits from selling a service or good in this country they should pay taxes for having access to US consumers, who also pay taxes. Are these businesses special somehow?

The person benefiting from a good or service is the buyer, not the seller.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have yet to meet a diehard con ever think he/she/ is wrong...

When did thinking you are wrong become a virtue? Everyone thinks they are right, it is perfectly natural. Do you often take positions you think are wrong? Is that a common practice among die hard libs? It could explain a lot.

 

[daveman]

during the abama administration, there has been a major effort to decrease regulations.

Utter nonsense.

“Despite the weak economy, the Obama Administration continued to increase the regulatory burden on Americans in 2011, adding 32 major regulations that increase regulatory burdens, almost $10 billion in annual costs, and $6.6 billion in one-time implementation costs. From the beginning of the Obama Administration through 2011, a staggering 106 major regulations that increase regulatory burdens have been issued, with costs exceeding $46 billion. While the President has acknowledged the need to rein in regulation, the steps taken to date have been meager.”

“During the three years of the Obama Administration, a total of 106 new major regulations have been imposed at a cost of more than $46 billion annually, and nearly $11 billion in one-time implementation costs. This amount is about five times the cost imposed by the prior Administration of George W. Bush.”​

Obama Regulation Overview Yields a Phony Four Reforms - Bob Beauprez - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

Brilliant, Daveman. Go to a con web site that typically quotes the type of drivel you love, and use it a source. I may send you a quote or two from moveon.

Dipshit.

The Obama Administration's Regulatory Reform Initiative

Last January, the Obama Administration announced a major regulatory review initiative. In its executive order, the administration directed federal agencies, among other things, to “consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” The announcement caused some consternation among progressives, including many environmental law professors. Many wondered why, at a time when regulatory gaps are a huge problem (see, e.g., climate change or regulation of toxic substances), the president was echoing some of the anti-regulatory rhetoric more commonly associated with his Republican critics.
Environmental Law Prof Blog: The Obama Administration's Regulatory Reform Initiative

Yes, the Obama administration's regulatory reform proposals will help spur private sector job growth by identifying the regulations that fail to efficiently protect American families and then reforming or removing them.
The Obama Administration's Regulatory Reform Proposals Will Spur Private Sector Job Growth | Brookings Institution


Administration Regulatory Reform To Save Health System $5 Billion ...
thinkprogress.org/.../administration-regulatory-reform-to-save-health.

Let's examine the key difference between our sources, mmmkay?

Your sources are Obama saying what he's going to do.

My source is what he actually did.


Do you understand the difference?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Utter nonsense.

“Despite the weak economy, the Obama Administration continued to increase the regulatory burden on Americans in 2011, adding 32 major regulations that increase regulatory burdens, almost $10 billion in annual costs, and $6.6 billion in one-time implementation costs. From the beginning of the Obama Administration through 2011, a staggering 106 major regulations that increase regulatory burdens have been issued, with costs exceeding $46 billion. While the President has acknowledged the need to rein in regulation, the steps taken to date have been meager.”

“During the three years of the Obama Administration, a total of 106 new major regulations have been imposed at a cost of more than $46 billion annually, and nearly $11 billion in one-time implementation costs. This amount is about five times the cost imposed by the prior Administration of George W. Bush.”​

Obama Regulation Overview Yields a Phony Four Reforms - Bob Beauprez - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

Brilliant, Daveman. Go to a con web site that typically quotes the type of drivel you love, and use it a source. I may send you a quote or two from moveon.

Dipshit.

The Obama Administration's Regulatory Reform Initiative

Last January, the Obama Administration announced a major regulatory review initiative. In its executive order, the administration directed federal agencies, among other things, to “consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” The announcement caused some consternation among progressives, including many environmental law professors. Many wondered why, at a time when regulatory gaps are a huge problem (see, e.g., climate change or regulation of toxic substances), the president was echoing some of the anti-regulatory rhetoric more commonly associated with his Republican critics.
Environmental Law Prof Blog: The Obama Administration's Regulatory Reform Initiative

Yes, the Obama administration's regulatory reform proposals will help spur private sector job growth by identifying the regulations that fail to efficiently protect American families and then reforming or removing them.
The Obama Administration's Regulatory Reform Proposals Will Spur Private Sector Job Growth | Brookings Institution


Administration Regulatory Reform To Save Health System $5 Billion ...
thinkprogress.org/.../administration-regulatory-reform-to-save-health.

Let's examine the key difference between our sources, mmmkay?

Your sources are Obama saying what he's going to do.

My source is what he actually did.


Do you understand the difference?

Let me try.

Obama is perfect, so whenever anything he says is contradicted by anything he does it is Bush's fault.

 

[daveman]

Brilliant, Daveman. Go to a con web site that typically quotes the type of drivel you love, and use it a source. I may send you a quote or two from moveon.

Dipshit.

The Obama Administration's Regulatory Reform Initiative

Last January, the Obama Administration announced a major regulatory review initiative. In its executive order, the administration directed federal agencies, among other things, to “consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” The announcement caused some consternation among progressives, including many environmental law professors. Many wondered why, at a time when regulatory gaps are a huge problem (see, e.g., climate change or regulation of toxic substances), the president was echoing some of the anti-regulatory rhetoric more commonly associated with his Republican critics.
Environmental Law Prof Blog: The Obama Administration's Regulatory Reform Initiative

Yes, the Obama administration's regulatory reform proposals will help spur private sector job growth by identifying the regulations that fail to efficiently protect American families and then reforming or removing them.
The Obama Administration's Regulatory Reform Proposals Will Spur Private Sector Job Growth | Brookings Institution


Administration Regulatory Reform To Save Health System $5 Billion ...
thinkprogress.org/.../administration-regulatory-reform-to-save-health.

Let's examine the key difference between our sources, mmmkay?

Your sources are Obama saying what he's going to do.

My source is what he actually did.


Do you understand the difference?

Let me try.

Obama is perfect, so whenever anything he says is contradicted by anything he does it is Bush's fault.

Excellent!

I wanted to support Obama, but I couldn't hit myself in the head with a hammer hard enough.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those poor mega corporations with their endless record-breaking profits every quarter yet they can still afford to run our country and pay for misleading info, etc. and some swallow it hook and sinker. Get real!!

It's awful! We should raise their taxes, that'll encourage them to bring the money to the US. What rate should we charge them? 60%? 70%? Higher?

Liberals figuratively beat their dogs, then wonder why they run away.

Except Obama, he literally eats his dog.

 

[RDD_1210]

I guess I could listen to your theory that shows how increasing taxes and regulations will raise wages.....

Funny, I don't remember saying that. Feel free to link me to it. I'd love to read about my own opinion.

Do you always get so defensive when you have no answer for a simple question?

Funny, I don't remember saying that.

Obama seems to think it. I disagree. What do you think?

Why did you say that I said it then? You're quite possible the worst debater on this site, and that's saying something.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, we should strengthen those who drive the economy and purchase products (the middle class). THAT will attract business here, nothing else.

Yes, we should make it more attractive to start a business here.
Of course that would involve reducing regulations and cutting our highest in the world corporate tax rates.
The exact opposite of what Obama wants.

Oh yah right! lol Who needs clean water, clean air, health, food, etc!?! As well, who needs protection from being fleeced, ripped off, etc. by those biz's who charge an inflated price for crap or worse like it was prior to reg's, OR what worker benefits from reg's for handling or breathing dangerous chem's, worker's safety, etc. Lets not forget those beloved banks and all their bs, skirting the reg's that have no teeth in them because they're above those law's they themselves weakened or just plain ignore.

We should have the highest tax rates for any biz that is privileged enough access to our markets which are #1 in the world. Got to pay to play!!

Oh, yeah, because the tens of thousands of business killing regulations only involve clean air, water and food.

Yeah, hike those corporate rates, what could go wrong? Idiot.

 

[Rshermr]

Any reasoning being understands that you do not use totally entrenched sources to prove a point. Hence, my reference to moveon.
And, if you actually read the document, you would see that he actually did what you said he had not.
I forgot you are a con, only capable of stating dogma. Maybe this will help.
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias ...
www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism...