If Republicans do get back into power, what are they going to do?

[Conservative]

Conservative is right in regards to GOP and the Democrats, sooner or later we should all realize that the government can't even run a koolaid stand without it going bankrupt. The government is the problem and the less of it the better off we all will be.

Only those that do not pay taxes, get all their very existence from the govt, and control the power to create victims support the massive expansion of govt. Liberalism is a disease that infects far too many all in the name of compassion. Wonder when all that rhetoric is going to actually generate positive results instead of more people dependent and greater debt?

 

[randel]

What is really sad is how you want to make me the issue yet ignore the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. Treasury Data as you never address specifics but continue to be obsessed with me instead. The facts are there for even the braindead to see if only they would trust but VERIFY what they are being told.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me but I do have a problem with people that disagree with me not knowing what they are talking about or backing up their statements with facts. Facts are a funny thing to liberals, they always get in the way of their person opinions. Noticed that you never address actual facts but instead try and destroy me. Have at it because that only makes you look foolish. Hiding behind a computer screen is what you do best but I am sure that even you know how wrong you are yet you continue to vie for attention.

the hell you don't have a problem with people disagreeing with you, everytime someone does you break out the labels and your godlike powers of observation...go sell that load of dung somewhere else. your a hack, plain and simple.

 

[Kroanon]

Only those that do not pay taxes, get all their very existence from the govt, and control the power to create victims support the massive expansion of govt. Liberalism is a disease that infects far too many all in the name of compassion. Wonder when all that rhetoric is going to actually generate positive results instead of more people dependent and greater debt?

Providing public health care and not spending all of our money on our military budget while cutting taxes and running a giant deficit like your precious Reagan means we're for massive expansion of government, right? And there you go again labeling your opponents as useless slobs that live off your tax dollars

 

[Conservative]

the hell you don't have a problem with people disagreeing with you, everytime someone does you break out the labels and your godlike powers of observation...go sell that load of dung somewhere else. your a hack, plain and simple.

LOL, a hack? Great, thanks for that description but more importantly thanks for your continued ignoring of the non partisan sites and facts given. That shows exactly who you are and before calling someone else a hack, look in the mirror.

Facts always get in the way of your personal opinions and that is why you have to resort to personal attacks. You cannot debate with intellectual honesty as apparently you have none.

 

[randel]

LOL, a hack? Great, thanks for that description but more importantly thanks for your continued ignoring of the non partisan sites and facts given. That shows exactly who you are and before calling someone else a hack, look in the mirror.

Facts always get in the way of your personal opinions and that is why you have to resort to personal attacks. You cannot debate with intellectual honesty as apparently you have none.

:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

 

[Conservative]

:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

Another brilliant reply from the intellectually dishonest

 

[Conservative]

Providing public health care and not spending all of our money on our military budget while cutting taxes and running a giant deficit like your precious Reagan means we're for massive expansion of government, right? And there you go again labeling your opponents as useless slobs that live off your tax dollars

Before making an absolute fool of yourself I suggest getting some facts. Go to this site to see how taxdollars are being spent, Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

You instead buy the rhetoric from sites that get their power from the ignorant. Human behavior is something that liberals do not seem to understand. What happens when you get more money in your take home pay and how does that affect the economy? All this outrage over people keeping more of THEIR money, you do realize that don't you? It is the people's money before it goes to the govt?

All this rhetoric about tax cuts causing deficits. Please explain to me why the site I gave you shows Govt. revenue growing AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Please explain to us all how growing govt. revenue causes deficits? Reagan double income tax revenue, doubled GDP, and created 20 million jobs. Bush took GDP fro 9.9 trillion to 14.4 trillion and had two recessions during his term.

For some reason you and your other liberal friends have a problem keeping your own money yet I don't see liberals like you writing checks to the govt. to pay more than what you owe in taxes. Wonder why?

Providing for the public health never was the role of the govt thus the Federal Taxpayer, that is a personal responsibility that you seem to ignore.

 

[Kroanon]

Before making an absolute fool of yourself I suggest getting some facts. Go to this site to see how taxdollars are being spent, Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

You instead buy the rhetoric from sites that get their power from the ignorant. Human behavior is something that liberals do not seem to understand. What happens when you get more money in your take home pay and how does that affect the economy? All this outrage over people keeping more of THEIR money, you do realize that don't you? It is the people's money before it goes to the govt?

All this rhetoric about tax cuts causing deficits. Please explain to me why the site I gave you shows Govt. revenue growing AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Please explain to us all how growing govt. revenue causes deficits? Reagan double income tax revenue, doubled GDP, and created 20 million jobs. Bush took GDP fro 9.9 trillion to 14.4 trillion and had two recessions during his term.

For some reason you and your other liberal friends have a problem keeping your own money yet I don't see liberals like you writing checks to the govt. to pay more than what you owe in taxes. Wonder why?

Providing for the public health never was the role of the govt thus the Federal Taxpayer, that is a personal responsibility that you seem to ignore.

1) You keep calling me a liberal, for no real good reason, I suppose since I don't agree with you.
2) Government's role changes as laws change, don't you realize that? Don't go around claiming "this is the government's role, and this is not, because I said so"
3) Your numbers are complete bull****, the GDP growth averaged 3.4% (no, it didn't double like you said did it?) after it recovered from the 1982 recession, and government revenues DROPPED 1 percent (as a percentage of the GDP; didn't double either did it?), I also liked how you rounded up the job creation figure, from 16 to 20 million. Inequality also increased due to his massive reduction of taxes for the richest Americans (from 70% to 28% for the top bracket). The share of total income received by the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988, and the share of the highest fifth of income increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. the share of total income of the lowest fifth of households fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%. The debt also increased astronomically

(at 8.2% growth per year for the federal deficit, from $700 billion to $3 trillion, causing the United States to go from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor)

 

[randel]

Another brilliant reply from the intellectually dishonest

really shouldnt be so hard on yourself

 

[Conservative]

1) You keep calling me a liberal, for no real good reason, I suppose since I don't agree with you.
2) Government's role changes as laws change, don't you realize that? Don't go around claiming "this is the government's role, and this is not, because I said so"
3) Your numbers are complete bull****, the GDP growth averaged 3.4% (no, it didn't double like you said did it?) after it recovered from the 1982 recession, and government revenues DROPPED 1 percent (as a percentage of the GDP; didn't double either did it?), I also liked how you rounded up the job creation figure, from 16 to 20 million. Inequality also increased due to his massive reduction of taxes for the richest Americans (from 70% to 28% for the top bracket). The share of total income received by the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988, and the share of the highest fifth of income increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. the share of total income of the lowest fifth of households fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%. The debt also increased astronomically

(at 8.2% growth per year for the federal deficit, from $700 billion to $3 trillion, causing the United States to go from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor)

Not sure where you get your information but the sites I gave you are non partisan and the keeper of actual govt. data. I doubt seriously that you have a clue.

Govt. revenue did double during the Reagan years as did INCOME TAX REVENUE something apparently you don't understand.

Job creation from 19980 through the last year of the Reagan economic policy 1989 didn't exactly equal 20 million but pretty damn close and that is AFTER The Reagan TAX cuts,

Still don't see an answer as to how that happened since liberals believe tax cuts cause deficits? You still denying that Income tax Revenue grew after those tax cuts?

I don't give a damn how much the rich make and the question is why do you? How much additional revenue are your projecting that the govt. will get by increasing the taxes on the Rich? Show me your liberal arrogance. If you don't want to be called a liberal then don't act like one.

Govt debt grew every Administration since Carter and Obama has put Bush spending on steroids. Still waiting for you to show me any Presidential Administration with trillion dollar deficits before Obama?

 

[Kroanon]

Not sure where you get your information but the sites I gave you are non partisan and the keeper of actual govt. data. I doubt seriously that you have a clue.

Govt. revenue did double during the Reagan years as did INCOME TAX REVENUE something apparently you don't understand.

Job creation from 19980 through the last year of the Reagan economic policy 1989 didn't exactly equal 20 million but pretty damn close and that is AFTER The Reagan TAX cuts,

Still don't see an answer as to how that happened since liberals believe tax cuts cause deficits? You still denying that Income tax Revenue grew after those tax cuts?

I don't give a damn how much the rich make and the question is why do you? How much additional revenue are your projecting that the govt. will get by increasing the taxes on the Rich? Show me your liberal arrogance. If you don't want to be called a liberal then don't act like one.

Govt debt grew every Administration since Carter and Obama has put Bush spending on steroids. Still waiting for you to show me any Presidential Administration with trillion dollar deficits before Obama?

You should give a damn since Reagan cut the rich's taxes to such a degree that he caused a massive increase in the deficit (from 32.5% to 43.8% of the GDP, for a deficit of approximately $1,499,000,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) which is over a trillion by the way, there's your example of a deficit running in the trillions before Obama for you)

Here's a graph showing tax cuts for the rich and poor versus debt

http://i37.tinypic.com/2yxoxly.png

Notice Reagan's cuts? Notice the increased national debt? The two almost correlate don't they?

Here's another graph showing National debts by presidency, there's even a section for House and Senate control.

http://i35.tinypic.com/359bz15.png

Here's another, showing overall spending, debt, and GDP increases, with Republican and Democratic Presidencies

http://i38.tinypic.com/33420t4.jpg

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Conservative]

You should give a damn since Reagan cut the rich's taxes to such a degree that he caused a massive increase in the deficit (from 32.5% to 43.8% of the GDP, for a deficit of approximately $1,499,000,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) which is over a trillion by the way, there's your example of a deficit running in the trillions before Obama for you)

Here's a graph showing tax cuts for the rich and poor versus debt

Notice Reagan's cuts? Notice the increased national debt? The two almost correlate don't they?

Here's another graph showing National debts by presidency, there's even a section for House and Senate control.

http://i35.tinypic.com/359bz15.png

Here's another, showing overall spending, debt, and GDP increases, with Republican and Democratic Presidency's

http://i38.tinypic.com/33420t4.jpg

Draw your own conclusions.

Wrong, tax cuts that grow govt. revenue cannot cause a deficit. Where did you get your education? It is the spending and always has been the spending. You give the govt. more money and they spend it. That is the only affect on the deficits tax cuts create, more govt. revenue to spend

My conclusions come from the actual U.S. Data, not charts, not percentages, actual numbers. No one is claiming the debt didn't increase, you just act like a liberal and blame it on tax cuts. That is simply false!!

From BEA.gov

1980 1988
1 Current receipts 798.7 1,502.4
2 Current tax receipts 585.6 1,018.9
3 Personal current taxes 298.9 504.9

Notice Personal income taxes of 298.9 in 1980 vs 504.9 in 1988 and that is AFTER the Reagan Tax cuts of 25%, how did that happen?

 

[Kroanon]

Wrong, tax cuts that grow govt. revenue cannot cause a deficit. Where did you get your education? It is the spending and always has been the spending. You give the govt. more money and they spend it. That is the only affect on the deficits tax cuts create, more govt. revenue to spend

My conclusions come from the actual U.S. Data, not charts, not percentages, actual numbers. No one is claiming the debt didn't increase, you just act like a liberal and blame it on tax cuts. That is simply false!!

From BEA.gov

1980 1988
1 Current receipts 798.7 1,502.4
2 Current tax receipts 585.6 1,018.9
3 Personal current taxes 298.9 504.9

He ramped up spending (for example, our defense budget increased by over 43%) tremendously as well. How the **** do you think we paid for all of those defense projects? Overall government revenue dropped 1 percent of the GDP, you can't change the numbers.

 

[Conservative]

He ramped up spending (for example, our defense budget increased by over 43%) tremendously as well. How the **** do you think we paid for all of those defense projects? Overall government revenue dropped 1 percent, you can't change the numbers.

No, Govt. revenue did not drop, suggest you get facts instead of leftwing talking points. Start here

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

 

[Kroanon]

No, Govt. revenue did not drop, suggest you get facts instead of leftwing talking points. Start here

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Source: http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf

 

[Conservative]

Source: http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf

Interesting how you take a report out of context and ignore actual numbers which are gathered by BEA since the Treasury Dept numbers don't go back that far. Govt. revenue did NOT drop as a result of tax cuts and that destroys your opinion.

 

[Kroanon]

Interesting how you take a report out of context and ignore actual numbers which are gathered by BEA since the Treasury Dept numbers don't go back that far. Govt. revenue did NOT drop as a result of tax cuts and that destroys your opinion.

It resulted as a combination of tax cuts and massive spending (which is what I originally said), to be more correct. Happy now?

 

[Conservative]

It resulted as a combination of tax cuts and massive spending (which is what I originally said), to be more correct. Happy now?

NO, you ignored that govt. revenue went up and that it is the people's money first not the Governments. Fact remains tax cuts during Reagan and Bush grew govt. revenue thus could NOT cause any deficits. It is always the spending. The right thing to do was cut spending and cut taxes at the same time. Liberals don't like that policy nor did many Republicans. Problem is Obama has put that spending on steroids and generated worse results. Govt. revenue is way down right now due to Obama policies. Govt. created jobs create taxpayer expenses which do not offset the taxes collected from these govt. employees.

 

[Conservative]

It resulted as a combination of tax cuts and massive spending (which is what I originally said), to be more correct. Happy now?

Let me see if I can make this a little simpler for you. First of all we have an economy built on the private sector of which employs most of the people in this country. Now let's see how that works.

You work for a company and get a paycheck. Part of that paycheck is withholding taxes to the govt. When taxes drop your take home pay is more and when taxes go up your take home pay is less. Now with more take home pay what do you do with that money. Don't you spend it, save it, invest it, or pay down debt? What affect does that have on the economy? If you spend it you drive up GDP in the consumer segment which helps create jobs because demand for goods and services is up. That activity multiplied by 150 million in the labor force helps create jobs and thus more taxpayers. Now if you save it, invest it, or pay down debt you provide more investment capital and paying down debt affects corporate profits and also provides capital to business to grow and employ more people. Those people then are taxpayers.

Get it now? That little tax cut when multiplied by all the taxpayers who got a tax cut led to increased economic activity and more job creation thus more taxpayers. Tax revenue then went up not down due to the tax cuts because you have more people paying taxes, not the same number paying less.

 

[UtahBill]

That is why I don't deal in propaganda, I prefer actual results and numbers from non partisan sites, bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury sites.

You and others raised the issue about the GOP not having any policies or answers. I pointed out why and you ignored that to go off on a tangent against Paul Ryan. When one party controls the legislative agenda with the margin that the Democrats have, the other side isn't going to get a lot of press so it is easy to say they don't have an agenda. The closer we get to the elections you will see that agenda.

I wish people like you would stop calling yourself a moderate or a centrist as there is nothing moderate or centrists in your views. The fact remains you cannot call yourself who you really are, a liberal, as you divert from the pure disaster that Obama is. You and your ilk paid zero attention to his resume and now pay no attention to the actual results as you continue to buy the rhetoric while ignoring the results. GOP did the right thing voting against the stimulus plan and Obamacare. They are doing the right thing now in asking that all bills be funded before being voted on and that all bills be actually read. Can't imagine why anyone would be against that.

Generalize much? a couple posts and you know all about me....
Here is my voting record, all republicans at the federal level, sometimes a democrat at state levels. I even voted for McCain, the sorriest excuse for a conservative there is in the GOP, not to mention morally deficient. McCains resume' was his own undoing, that and his flip flopping over the years. He was born in Panama, and in the bottom 5 of his graduation class at the academy.
ANYBODY who hangs out at either end of the political spectrum is not in it for the prospects of doing good. ANYBODY who is so inflexible that they can't see SOME good in the opposite party's efforts shouldn't be allowed to vote....they automatically fail the intellect test.

 

[Conservative]

Generalize much? a couple posts and you know all about me....
Here is my voting record, all republicans at the federal level, sometimes a democrat at state levels. I even voted for McCain, the sorriest excuse for a conservative there is in the GOP, not to mention morally deficient. McCains resume' was his own undoing, that and his flip flopping over the years. He was born in Panama, and in the bottom 5 of his graduation class at the academy.
ANYBODY who hangs out at either end of the political spectrum is not in it for the prospects of doing good. ANYBODY who is so inflexible that they can't see SOME good in the opposite party's efforts shouldn't be allowed to vote....they automatically fail the intellect test.

Well at least we know what the McCain education record was. Let me know when you see the transcripts of Obama or anyone that knew him while in college. I voted for McCain as well because he beat the alternative but he wasn't my choice either. I just know what we have now is a total and complete disaster.

 

[randel]

Generalize much? a couple posts and you know all about me....
Here is my voting record, all republicans at the federal level, sometimes a democrat at state levels. I even voted for McCain, the sorriest excuse for a conservative there is in the GOP, not to mention morally deficient. McCains resume' was his own undoing, that and his flip flopping over the years. He was born in Panama, and in the bottom 5 of his graduation class at the academy.
ANYBODY who hangs out at either end of the political spectrum is not in it for the prospects of doing good. ANYBODY who is so inflexible that they can't see SOME good in the opposite party's efforts shouldn't be allowed to vote....they automatically fail the intellect test.

you will be amazed at his godlike powers to 'know' all about someone just by a few posts...

 

[Conservative]

Generalize much? a couple posts and you know all about me....
Here is my voting record, all republicans at the federal level, sometimes a democrat at state levels. I even voted for McCain, the sorriest excuse for a conservative there is in the GOP, not to mention morally deficient. McCains resume' was his own undoing, that and his flip flopping over the years. He was born in Panama, and in the bottom 5 of his graduation class at the academy.
ANYBODY who hangs out at either end of the political spectrum is not in it for the prospects of doing good. ANYBODY who is so inflexible that they can't see SOME good in the opposite party's efforts shouldn't be allowed to vote....they automatically fail the intellect test.

I grew up a Democrat and in fact played JFK in a civics program in school. The Democrat Party back then was more conservative but that party left me with Carter and I haven't voted for a Democrat on the national stage since. There is no room for a Conservative in today's Democrat Party.

Reagan was the first Republican I voted for and the one thing I learned from him was "trust but verify" and I do that with any politician today. Verifiable facts mean more to me than promises and rhetoric. I have no use for Obama and his liberal elite economists that never held a real job. Their results speak for themselves. As I stated I didn't like McCain either but he sure beat the alternative.

 

[Objective Voice]

Why make Bush tax cuts permanant? Why not target new tax cuts more to middle class and small business. Tax cuts geared to create jobs and bolster the economy. The rich are awash in cash, sitting on the sidelines with no place to put it. The Bush tax cuts did nothing to stimulate the economy but they did increase the deficit. There is a better way.

You know, you are the FIRST person I've notice to actually pose this question in its proper context. Here's why it caught my attention...

Much to my dismay, I do listen to Conservative talk radio fairly regularly (mostly because it's the only form of talk radio in my area) and I constantly hear guys like Rush, Hannity and Levin say almost on a daily basis that tax cuts to the wealth create jobs. Yet in the next breath they'll say that small business are the largest job creators in this country. So, my question is which one is it? Are jobs created by cutting taxes on big business, i.e., non-tax dollars "trickle down" in the form of new hires? Or is giving loans and tax credits to small business loans the real path to economic recovery?

What? if a company is over regulated it will close and leave and there isn't anything the government can do to make it stay. Companies are leaving this state because of this. A company called CAI(chemical) here in MA. employing about 50 or more people had a explosion/fire and completely burnt to the ground, along with damaging other structures. Now CAI wanted to rebuild but was denied, no new chemicals companies or structures are permitted to build, so what did this company do, it closed and moved to Canada but it still supplies it's customers here in MA. What happened to those 50 employees, well they were put out of work, what happen to this company paying it's taxes to the town well it now pays the province of Ontario and nor MA. What happens when companies leave a community, that community gets a lower tax revenue along with unemployed people within that community. So the town's answer is to raise taxes on the community including the unemployed. The average tax rate for home owners in eastern MA. is between 4,000 to 6,000 dollars a year and going up, what do we receive not much more than we received 30 years ago.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly...

A company conducted itself in an unsafe manner, the city (apparently) imposed strong safety measures, the company couldn't meet it's legal liability and pulled up stakes and it's the government's fault for the company not following proper safety regulations? Am I reading you correctly?

 

[Conservative]

Objective Voice;1058910827]You know, you are the FIRST person I've notice to actually pose this question in its proper context. Here's why it caught my attention...

Much to my dismay, I do listen to Conservative talk radio fairly regularly (mostly because it's the only form of talk radio in my area) and I constantly hear guys like Rush, Hannity and Levin say almost on a daily basis that tax cuts to the wealth create jobs. Yet in the next breath they'll say that small business are the largest job creators in this country. So, my question is which one is it? Are jobs created by cutting taxes on big business, i.e., non-tax dollars "trickle down" in the form of new hires? Or is giving loans and tax credits to small business loans the real path to economic recovery?

There is absolutely no proof that the Bush tax cuts created any deficit on the contrary the U.S. Treasury Dept shows that income tax revenue grew AFTER the rate cuts went into effect, July 2003. Too many people are buying into the liberal rhetoric and I don't get it.

First, The revenue is the taxpayers first therefore it cannot be an expense to the govt.

Second, tax cuts put more money into the take home pay of the taxpayer and those tax payers spent it, saved it, invested it, or paid down debt all helping the economy.

Third we have a consumer driven economy where consumer spending equals approximately 2/3 of our GDP so people with more income, spending it creates demand, grows our economy, and creates new taxpayers.

I don't understand why I have to convince people the value of keeping more of their own money and why so many aren't scrutizing our 3.8 trillion dollar budget and greedy politicians that want to keep people dependent. We seem to have an extremely naive, brainwashed group of people in this country.