This explains our current parties pretty well

[bigrebnc1775]

The economy has been going slowly into the crapper since Reagan. Even people from his administration say it. Only now, we're there. These tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires Republicans care so much about, will put us over the top.

The economy has been going in the crapper since Reagan? 2006 Unemployment was 4.6 or close to that number, What is the unemployment numbers now? If you call from reagan on the crapper, I guess we at in the septic tank now.

dude, just wow

What? Thanks for making my point.

 

[Truthmatters]

Oh he doesnt really think it hes just lying

 

[Truthmatters]

How utterly dishonest to claim this all happened in 2oo6 out of thin air.

I think bigred has no honesty left

How about quoting the post you are commenting on.

The economy has been going in the crapper since Reagan? 2006 Unemployment was 4.6 or close to that number, What is the unemployment numbers now? If you call from reagan on the crapper, I guess we at in the septic tank now.

Unemployment rate of 4.7 percent lowest since July 2001 - Feb. 3, 2006

Umm, the post you responded to said nothing about unemployment or 2006

Dude your dishonesty knows no bounds

 

[The T]

U.S. poverty rate jumps record amount - 1 in 7 Americans considered poor in 2009: report


Imagine that?

Proof that bush*'s budget caused massive increases in poverty

Oh, I forgot!! The budget the republicans voted for, and bush* signed, is the dems fault. The dems forced the repukes to vote for those budgets so they could vote against the budget that they liked

And who controlled the purse strings? And yes Bush didn't do this nation any favours domestically with the 'Compassionate' Conservatism when he favoured the likes of Teddy Kennedy to write education policy.

The point is? Is that Government is at fault here...presupposing that you are willing not to step on the flaming bag of partisan dogsqueeze that's right in front of you?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My point? Is that raisng taxes does not create more tax revenue. My point is obama only reason for raising taxes is to spread the wealth make evryone equally poor.

You are right on the first point, as I've said several times in this thread. I'd like to see you support your 2nd "point" with some evidence. I'd also like to see you express your 2nd point in correct english. It's hard to understand what you're saying when you say it incorrectly

Your comprehension skills are below subpar. You're going to get what ever I decide to give to you. You are not worth the effort take it or leave it.

Obama said
to create equallity he would raise taxes. Thats the reason he wants to do it, and that reason never works. Raising taxes has never created equal wealth, just the opposit equal proverty.,

 

[Truthmatters]

BIGRED, My mistake. I mistread this to be your response.

I appologise for the stupid mistake.

 

[The T]

U.S. poverty rate jumps record amount - 1 in 7 Americans considered poor in 2009: report


Imagine that?

Thats right we are at an all time high with more an more Americans in proverty.

Now watch'em try to twist that.

Of course. They'll blame the other guy when it is Gubmint policies that made it happen in the first place regardless of the partisan horseshit we are having to step around these days.

If some of these guys could only learn focus?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How utterly dishonest to claim this all happened in 2oo6 out of thin air.

I think bigred has no honesty left

How about quoting the post you are commenting on.

The economy has been going in the crapper since Reagan? 2006 Unemployment was 4.6 or close to that number, What is the unemployment numbers now? If you call from reagan on the crapper, I guess we at in the septic tank now.

Unemployment rate of 4.7 percent lowest since July 2001 - Feb. 3, 2006

Umm, the post you responded to said nothing about unemployment or 2006

OH I see, so now we do not measure the economy by showing the unemployment numbers?
Three years ago that was the basis of a strong economy.
2006 through 2010 has been the years of changing what things use to mean.

 

[sangha]

Proof that bush*'s budget caused massive increases in poverty

Oh, I forgot!! The budget the republicans voted for, and bush* signed, is the dems fault. The dems forced the repukes to vote for those budgets so they could vote against the budget that they liked

And who controlled the purse strings? And yes Bush didn't do this nation any favours domestically with the 'Compassionate' Conservatism when he favoured the likes of Teddy Kennedy to write education policy.

The point is? Is that Government is at fault here...presupposing that you are willing not to step on the flaming bag of partisan dogsqueeze that's right in front of you?

The repiblicans in congress voted for those budgets. bush* signed them

And your claim to non-partisan is a joke coming from you. I'm still waiting for you to admit those budgets were passed and signed by republicans

 

[sangha]

How about quoting the post you are commenting on.



Unemployment rate of 4.7 percent lowest since July 2001 - Feb. 3, 2006

Umm, the post you responded to said nothing about unemployment or 2006

OH I see, so now we do not measure the economy by showing the unemployment numbers?
Three years ago that was the basis of a strong economy.
2006 through 2010 has been the years of changing what things use to mean.

No, unemployment is NOT the sole measure of economic performance. The USSR had nearly full employment

 

[sangha]

Thats right we are at an all time high with more an more Americans in proverty.

Now watch'em try to twist that.

Of course. They'll blame the other guy when it is Gubmint policies that made it happen in the first place regardless of the partisan horseshit we are having to step around these days.

If some of these guys could only learn focus?

After blaming the democrats for budgets passed by republicans and signed by bush*, the wingnut realizes he is losing, so now he lies and claims he is non-partisan

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Umm, the post you responded to said nothing about unemployment or 2006

OH I see, so now we do not measure the economy by showing the unemployment numbers?
Three years ago that was the basis of a strong economy.
2006 through 2010 has been the years of changing what things use to mean.

No, unemployment is NOT the sole measure of economic performance. The USSR had nearly full employment

However when someone saysthe economny was in the crapper from Reagan on. The unemployment number must be introduces. Looking at the numbers it looks like the economy was doing better in 2006 than it's doing now.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Of course. They'll blame the other guy when it is Gubmint policies that made it happen in the first place regardless of the partisan horseshit we are having to step around these days.

If some of these guys could only learn focus?

After blaming the democrats for budgets passed by republicans and signed by bush*, the wingnut realizes he is losing, so now he lies and claims he is non-partisan

Denial is the action of a child.

 

[The T]

Of course. They'll blame the other guy when it is Gubmint policies that made it happen in the first place regardless of the partisan horseshit we are having to step around these days.

If some of these guys could only learn focus?

After blaming the democrats for budgets passed by republicans and signed by bush*, the wingnut realizes he is losing, so now he lies and claims he is non-partisan

I highlighted it for you. Pay attention.

 

[sangha]

OH I see, so now we do not measure the economy by showing the unemployment numbers?
Three years ago that was the basis of a strong economy.
2006 through 2010 has been the years of changing what things use to mean.

No, unemployment is NOT the sole measure of economic performance. The USSR had nearly full employment

However when someone saysthe economny was in the crapper from Reagan on. The unemployment number must be introduces. Looking at the numbers it looks like the economy was doing better in 2006 than it's doing now.

If you're trying to dispute a comment about Reagan, maybe you should use #'s that start with Reagans term, instead of bush*'s. Only a wingnut like you would think that what the congressional dems did in 2006 explains anything about what Reagan did more than 20 years ago.

 

[sangha]

After blaming the democrats for budgets passed by republicans and signed by bush*, the wingnut realizes he is losing, so now he lies and claims he is non-partisan

I highlighted it for you. Pay attention.

Now the wingnut is denying he blamed dems. Wingnuts always run away from their own words when challenged. I wonder how long it will be before the Tbagger is reduced to posting nothing but personal attacks?

 

[Truthmatters]

Tax Cuts Usually Lead to Higher Unemployment. Tax Increases Lead to Lower Unemployment. | BuzzFlash.org


take a look at this guys info compile of top tax rates and unemployment.

Higher top tax rates correlate with lower unemployment historically



YEAR TOP MARGINAL TAX RATE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE RESULT
1962 91 5.7 BASE YEAR
1963 77 5.2 Tax cut/ Unemployment down
1964 70 4.5 Tax cut/
Unemployment down


1967 70 3.8 BASE YEAR
1968 75 3.6 Tax hike/ Unemployment down
1969 77 3.5 Tax hike/ Unemployment down
1970 71.8 4.9 Tax cut/ Unemployment Up
1971 70 5.9 Tax cut/ Unemployment Up

1980 70 7.1 BASE YEAR
1981 69.1 7.6 Tax cut/
Unemployment Up
1982 50 9.7 Tax cut/ Unemployment Up

1986 50 7.0 BASE YEAR
1987 38.5 6.2 Tax cut/ Unemployment down
1988 28 5.5 Tax cut/
Unemployment down

1989 31 5.6 Tax hike/ Unemployment up

1992 31 7.5 BASE YEAR
1993 39.6 6.9 Tax hike/
Unemployment down


2000 39.6 4.0 BASE YEAR
2001 38.6 4.7 Tax cut/
Unemployment up


2002 38.6 5.8 BASE YEAR
2003



2010
35 6.0



9.8
Tax cut/
Unemployment up

The legacy of trickle down economics.

More wealth for the rich, fewer jobs for the rest of America.

 

[Full-Auto]

Of course. They'll blame the other guy when it is Gubmint policies that made it happen in the first place regardless of the partisan horseshit we are having to step around these days.

If some of these guys could only learn focus?

After blaming the democrats for budgets passed by republicans and signed by bush*, the wingnut realizes he is losing, so now he lies and claims he is non-partisan

In case you were asleep during part of the time. The largest deficits bush signed were from the dem congress.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, unemployment is NOT the sole measure of economic performance. The USSR had nearly full employment

However when someone saysthe economny was in the crapper from Reagan on. The unemployment number must be introduces. Looking at the numbers it looks like the economy was doing better in 2006 than it's doing now.

If you're trying to dispute a comment about Reagan, maybe you should use #'s that start with Reagans term, instead of bush*'s. Only a wingnut like you would think that what the congressional dems did in 2006 explains anything about what Reagan did more than 20 years ago.

I was disputing the comment made about the ecoinomy being in the crapper.
The economy was in the crapper when Reagan became President it strengthen and grew. The unemployment numbers were at an all time low or clos to it, during Bushes first 6 years. And now look at what we have.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Tax Cuts Usually Lead to Higher Unemployment. Tax Increases Lead to Lower Unemployment. | BuzzFlash.org


take a look at this guys info compile of top tax rates and unemployment.

Higher top tax rates correlate with lower unemployment historically



YEAR TOP MARGINAL TAX RATE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE RESULT
1962 91 5.7 BASE YEAR
1963 77 5.2 Tax cut/ Unemployment down
1964 70 4.5 Tax cut/
Unemployment down


1967 70 3.8 BASE YEAR
1968 75 3.6 Tax hike/ Unemployment down
1969 77 3.5 Tax hike/ Unemployment down
1970 71.8 4.9 Tax cut/ Unemployment Up
1971 70 5.9 Tax cut/ Unemployment Up

1980 70 7.1 BASE YEAR
1981 69.1 7.6 Tax cut/
Unemployment Up
1982 50 9.7 Tax cut/ Unemployment Up

1986 50 7.0 BASE YEAR
1987 38.5 6.2 Tax cut/ Unemployment down
1988 28 5.5 Tax cut/
Unemployment down

1989 31 5.6 Tax hike/ Unemployment up

1992 31 7.5 BASE YEAR
1993 39.6 6.9 Tax hike/
Unemployment down


2000 39.6 4.0 BASE YEAR
2001 38.6 4.7 Tax cut/
Unemployment up


2002 38.6 5.8 BASE YEAR
2003



2010
35 6.0



9.8
Tax cut/
Unemployment up

The legacy of trickle down economics.

More wealth for the rich, fewer jobs for the rest of America.

Why the gap between 2003 and 2010?