Fruitcake with that Tea Party ?

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Yes its way better to enjoy all the good stuff benefits of America now and confiscate the price for it from your kids or grandkids.

The conservative way "UH you loan me some money?" LOL

National debt increase relative to GDP

Ronald Reagan R 1981–1984 +11.3%
Reagan2 Ronald Reagan R 1985–1989 +9.3%
Bush GHW George H. W. Bush R 1989–1993 +15.0%
Clinton1 Bill Clinton D -0.7%
Clinton2 Bill Clinton D -9.0%
Bush GW1 George W. Bush R +7.1%
Bush GW2 George W. Bush R +20.0%

Do you have an explanation for this or some logic that can twist this into a good thing? Do you understand that this has to be paid someday and that the only ways to pay it is to collect money for it or print money for it?

Do you get the concept that the debt increase during the Reagan years funded the problems for the debt increase in the Bush years?

Its not a good thing at all. Wonder what happened during those years of debt increase ? hmmmm. Wonder what happened during the Clinton years ? hmmmmm.

Without history, they are just numbers. Ever had points in your own lifes budget when things were down ? Why is that ? Have some hard times ? Somethings you didnt expect to have to pay for ? Naaaa, not you.

Got anything besides numbers ? Maybe, ....... some substance ?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by scotty

Its not a good thing at all. Wonder what happened during those years of debt increase ? hmmmm. Wonder what happened during the Clinton years ? hmmmmm.

Without history, they are just numbers. Ever had points in your own lifes budget when things were down ? Why is that ? Have some hard times ? Somethings you didnt expect to have to pay for ? Naaaa, not you.

Got anything besides numbers ? Maybe, ....... some substance ?

You have clarity. 30% of the tax revenue during Clinton came from capital gainss taxes on the sale of securities. The dot com and telecom bubble drove up the markets and people paid tax on gains. When it dropped, there was less tax revenue during Bush and actually some losses.

It is horrible for tax revenue to be dependent on inflation.

It Grandpa bought a farm for 50,000 and I sell it for 2 million, the Fed wants a chunk from the inflation of farmland. 2 million will not buy any more acres.

[GISG]

Originally Posted by scotty

THEY are unlearned ? Seriously ? You are the author of some of the most politically unlearned post on this forum. I don't know how smart you are but if your post here is any indicator then thier first grade level really makes you look bad.

She made Twisp doubt being a liberal.

[Seascapes]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Yes its way better to enjoy all the good stuff benefits of America now and confiscate the price for it from your kids or grandkids.

The conservative way "UH you loan me some money?" LOL

National debt increase relative to GDP

Ronald Reagan R 1981–1984 +11.3%
Reagan2 Ronald Reagan R 1985–1989 +9.3%
Bush GHW George H. W. Bush R 1989–1993 +15.0%
Clinton1 Bill Clinton D -0.7%
Clinton2 Bill Clinton D -9.0%
Bush GW1 George W. Bush R +7.1%
Bush GW2 George W. Bush R +20.0%

Do you have an explanation for this or some logic that can twist this into a good thing? Do you understand that this has to be paid someday and that the only ways to pay it is to collect money for it or print money for it?

Do you get the concept that the debt increase during the Reagan years funded the problems for the debt increase in the Bush years?

Thanks, for this information. It is clear why we owe so much debt. It seems that the republicans do not know how to manage the debt of our country. If President Clinton had not left our country in a surplus, then GW1 would have been greater than +7.1% . I wonder why so many that vote republican can not see this.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Seascapes

Thanks, for this information. It is clear why we owe so much debt. It seems that the republicans do not know how to manage the debt of our country. If President Clinton had not left our country in a surplus, then GW1 would have been greater than +7.1% . I wonder why so many that vote republican can not see this.

Republicans aren't blind.

1.. During Clinton as I have posted, 30% of the fed tax revenue came from gains on selling stocks. The trash stocks were dot com and telecom stocks.

Bill had nothing to do with the bubble.
You are dishonest if you say it was Bill. That money came from the people.

(Hillary the little stinker did make a couple hundred thousand on illegal trades)

Dishonest Dems don't see that spending starts in Congress. 4 years ago the spending binges were a democrat congress. The Mortgage bubble meltdown were traced to Queer Baernie and his blindness with the mortgage GSE's.

Bill did leave a crumbling stock market for Bush to inherit.

Hussein Obama is leaving 5 trillion red ink in record time.

[Walks_in_islam]

No comment on the cost of our wars? No brilliant historical analysis of where the Taliban and Iraqis got all their training and funding and equipment and insecticide precursers LOL and whos administration provided it?

Originally Posted by coadie

You have clarity. 30% of the tax revenue during Clinton came from capital gainss taxes on the sale of securities. The dot com and telecom bubble drove up the markets and people paid tax on gains. When it dropped, there was less tax revenue during Bush and actually some losses.

It is horrible for tax revenue to be dependent on inflation.

It Grandpa bought a farm for 50,000 and I sell it for 2 million, the Fed wants a chunk from the inflation of farmland. 2 million will not buy any more acres.

[Seascapes]

Originally Posted by coadie

Republicans aren't blind.

1.. During Clinton as I have posted, 30% of the fed tax revenue came from gains on selling stocks. The trash stocks were dot com and telecom stocks.

Bill had nothing to do with the bubble.
You are dishonest if you say it was Bill. That money came from the people.

(Hillary the little stinker did make a couple hundred thousand on illegal trades)

Dishonest Dems don't see that spending starts in Congress. 4 years ago the spending binges were a democrat congress. The Mortgage bubble meltdown were traced to Queer Baernie and his blindness with the mortgage GSE's.

Bill did leave a crumbling stock market for Bush to inherit.

Hussein Obama is leaving 5 trillion red ink in record time.

coadie you have spoken like a TEA POT republican. Posting lies with no facts. Most republicans will admit the truth, at least when cornered. President Clinton knew what to do to help our country get out of debt, and so does President Obama. To help our economy the republicans, if they were good Americans, would tax the wealthiest and stop the big oil companies from ripping off the people at the pumps, but they won't admit they are wrong.

I am throwing this in just to refute the lies told, which is in the news today..

John McCain said..."I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.

In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/2011/05/1...rm-of-torture/

This was also posted in another Thread, but thought it was fitting to put here also.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

No comment on the cost of our wars? No brilliant historical analysis of where the Taliban and Iraqis got all their training and funding and equipment and insecticide precursers LOL and whos administration provided it?

You are not an ecomomist. I oppose war. From a dollars standpoint, you and others seem to not have a handle on "cost of war" from a dollars standpoint. Wars spend billions on aircraft, ships, land vehicles and salaries whcih are spent into the American economy. Raytheon and many others make a fortune during war and they worker payroll feeds the economy. The bad side is the borrowed money for the defense spending. We don't dump 500 billion dollars in the Persion Gulf. That money is spent over here. Those soldiers have a lot of their payroll deposited back home.

[Walks_in_islam]

Nice of you to bring up the damage that cutting short term capital gains taxes did to our economy. Our country did not become great by settling the west for a few months then flipping the property for profit (can you say housing bubble?). Our industries were not built by traders who bought oil and commodity contracts then flipped them a few months later for profits (can you say energy bubble?). Our country did not become great by trading firms that artificially manipulated individual stocks then flipped them a few months later for profits (can you say market bubble?)

It is typical that a conservative republican would support this activity. Good for Clinton. I am all about taxing short term "capital gains" out of existance.

Originally Posted by coadie

You have clarity. 30% of the tax revenue during Clinton came from capital gainss taxes on the sale of securities. The dot com and telecom bubble drove up the markets and people paid tax on gains. When it dropped, there was less tax revenue during Bush and actually some losses.

It is horrible for tax revenue to be dependent on inflation.

It Grandpa bought a farm for 50,000 and I sell it for 2 million, the Fed wants a chunk from the inflation of farmland. 2 million will not buy any more acres.

[Walks_in_islam]

You are right. I am not an economist. Economists dont build things. They dont make things. They dont add value to things. At the end of the day on the deathbed of an economist all they have to say is that they gave great thought and consideration to the above but never actually rolled up their sleeves and did it.

I plan to have dirty hands. Thank you for the economist remark. To me, it is a compliment.

Paying companies for things they build with money you have is one thing. Paying with money you dont have is what we are discussiong. I do not need you to explain the concept of "borrow and spend" on war. I would like an explanation of how it makes the average American better off.

Thank goodness one does not have to be an economist to determine that money spent that you did not have in the first place is bad no matter where it goes (laughing). Actually, you have to be pretty much a moron to believe that this is a good thing. Could it be that in addition to adding not one whit of real measurable value economists are also really just another group of morons?

We dumped 400 billion to the afghans and iraqis to fight the russians and iranians then spent a trillion to reverse it. Your short term memory is as good as your ideas on short term capital gains.

Originally Posted by coadie

You are not an ecomomist. I oppose war. From a dollars standpoint, you and others seem to not have a handle on "cost of war" from a dollars standpoint. Wars spend billions on aircraft, ships, land vehicles and salaries whcih are spent into the American economy. Raytheon and many others make a fortune during war and they worker payroll feeds the economy. The bad side is the borrowed money for the defense spending. We don't dump 500 billion dollars in the Persion Gulf. That money is spent over here. Those soldiers have a lot of their payroll deposited back home.