RockyMtnRamfan
Banned
Posts: 551
Joined: Aug 2008
I Root For: Colorado State
Location:
|
RE: And the market's response to our new leader?
(01-20-2009 06:39 PM)Rebel Wrote: (01-20-2009 06:37 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote: (01-20-2009 06:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: Too bad you don't know that the Democratic Congress holds the Nation's purse strings. But their ALL F"UCKING at fault all 545 of them.
Iraq War (trillions spent) started under Bush and Republicans. Costs far more than anything the Dems have done, including all the bailouts combined.
Trillions spent in Iraq?
Yeah, you're gonna have to show me a link to that one.
When it is all said and done, we will spend trillions in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...46_pf.html
Counter
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
|
|
01-20-2009 06:42 PM |
|
RockyMtnRamfan
Banned
Posts: 551
Joined: Aug 2008
I Root For: Colorado State
Location:
|
RE: And the market's response to our new leader?
|
|
01-20-2009 06:43 PM |
|
Rebel
Unregistered
|
RE: And the market's response to our new leader?
(01-20-2009 06:42 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote: (01-20-2009 06:39 PM)Rebel Wrote: (01-20-2009 06:37 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote: (01-20-2009 06:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: Too bad you don't know that the Democratic Congress holds the Nation's purse strings. But their ALL F"UCKING at fault all 545 of them.
Iraq War (trillions spent) started under Bush and Republicans. Costs far more than anything the Dems have done, including all the bailouts combined.
Trillions spent in Iraq?
Yeah, you're gonna have to show me a link to that one.
When it is all said and done, we will spend trillions in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...46_pf.html
Counter
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
You just pwned yourself.
|
|
01-20-2009 06:44 PM |
|
Rebel
Unregistered
|
RE: And the market's response to our new leader?
(01-20-2009 06:43 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote: Bush just used Reaganomics and it was proven to be a failed policy.
Reaganomics don't work? Then you're a slave as you believe humans can't exist without the government, which is normally formed of people no smarter than a 5th grader, telling us what to do.
|
|
01-20-2009 06:45 PM |
|
RockyMtnRamfan
Banned
Posts: 551
Joined: Aug 2008
I Root For: Colorado State
Location:
|
RE: And the market's response to our new leader?
(01-20-2009 06:45 PM)Rebel Wrote: (01-20-2009 06:43 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote: Bush just used Reaganomics and it was proven to be a failed policy.
Reaganomics don't work? Then you're a slave as you believe humans can't exist without the government, which is normally formed of people no smarter than a 5th grader, telling us what to do.
Your credibility went out the window because you were completely helped by the government, being in the military.
|
|
01-20-2009 06:48 PM |
|
Rebel
Unregistered
|
RE: And the market's response to our new leader?
(01-20-2009 06:48 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote: (01-20-2009 06:45 PM)Rebel Wrote: (01-20-2009 06:43 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote: Bush just used Reaganomics and it was proven to be a failed policy.
Reaganomics don't work? Then you're a slave as you believe humans can't exist without the government, which is normally formed of people no smarter than a 5th grader, telling us what to do.
Your credibility went out the window because you were completely helped by the government, being in the military.
Are you essentially calling our soldiers welfare recipients, you piece of ****? I didn't NEED the ******* Army. I did it out of tradition and honoring my country.
|
|
01-20-2009 06:50 PM |
|
RockyMtnRamfan
Banned
Posts: 551
Joined: Aug 2008
I Root For: Colorado State
Location:
|
RE: And the market's response to our new leader?
(01-20-2009 06:50 PM)Rebel Wrote: (01-20-2009 06:48 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote: (01-20-2009 06:45 PM)Rebel Wrote: (01-20-2009 06:43 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote: Bush just used Reaganomics and it was proven to be a failed policy.
Reaganomics don't work? Then you're a slave as you believe humans can't exist without the government, which is normally formed of people no smarter than a 5th grader, telling us what to do.
Your credibility went out the window because you were completely helped by the government, being in the military.
Are you essentially calling our soldiers welfare recipients, you piece of ****? I didn't NEED the ******* Army. I did it out of tradition and honoring my country.
Did Uncle Sam pay your paycheck or not? Simple question. I already know the answer.
|
|
01-20-2009 06:51 PM |
|
Owl 69/70/75
Just an old rugby coach
Posts: 80,842
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX
|
RE: And the market's response to our new leader?
(01-20-2009 06:43 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote: Bush just used Reaganomics and it was proven to be a failed policy.
If you really understood the principles, Clinton came closer than Bush to Reaganomics. And it did work.
Clinton's tax rates were among the lowest in the developed world, and extended prosperity resulted.
Bush's tax rates weren't, even after his cuts. Why not? Because the rest of the world figured out during the Clinton years that Reaganomics did work, and they lowered theirs. The Bush tax cuts were focused more on rewarding cronies than on things that would have spurred investment (corporate income, dividends, capital gains). Bush's tax cuts certainly were not "supply side."
Worldwide tax rates, except of course in the US, have been tumbling for the last 15-20 years.
|
|
01-20-2009 06:52 PM |
|
RockyMtnRamfan
Banned
Posts: 551
Joined: Aug 2008
I Root For: Colorado State
Location:
|
RE: And the market's response to our new leader?
(01-20-2009 06:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (01-20-2009 06:43 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote: Bush just used Reaganomics and it was proven to be a failed policy.
If you really understood the principles, Clinton came closer than Bush to Reaganomics. And it did work.
Clinton's tax rates were among the lowest in the developed world, and extended prosperity resulted.
Bush's tax rates weren't, even after his cuts. Why not? Because the rest of the world figured out during the Clinton years that Reaganomics did work, and they lowered theirs. The Bush tax cuts were focused more on rewarding cronies than on things that would have spurred investment (corporate income, dividends, capital gains). Bush's tax cuts certainly were not "supply side."
Worldwide tax rates, except of course in the US, have been tumbling for the last 15-20 years.
You can't spend like there's no tomorrow and keep cutting taxes. It does not work, hence failed policy.
|
|
01-20-2009 06:54 PM |
|
Owl 69/70/75
Just an old rugby coach
Posts: 80,842
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX
|
RE: And the market's response to our new leader?
(01-20-2009 06:54 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote: (01-20-2009 06:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (01-20-2009 06:43 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote: Bush just used Reaganomics and it was proven to be a failed policy.
If you really understood the principles, Clinton came closer than Bush to Reaganomics. And it did work.
Clinton's tax rates were among the lowest in the developed world, and extended prosperity resulted.
Bush's tax rates weren't, even after his cuts. Why not? Because the rest of the world figured out during the Clinton years that Reaganomics did work, and they lowered theirs. The Bush tax cuts were focused more on rewarding cronies than on things that would have spurred investment (corporate income, dividends, capital gains). Bush's tax cuts certainly were not "supply side."
Worldwide tax rates, except of course in the US, have been tumbling for the last 15-20 years.
You can't spend like there's no tomorrow and keep cutting taxes. It does not work, hence failed policy.
I totally agree on the spending part, but that's not supply-side economics. Clinton cut spending (or at least cut the growth in spending), kept our tax rates at or near the lowest in the world, and balanced the budget. That's supply side economics.
Shrub did none of the three, and failed spectacularly on at least two of them. That's not supply-side economics.
I agree that Shrub's policies failed. I don't agree that they were "Reaganomics."
(This post was last modified: 01-20-2009 07:06 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
|
|
01-20-2009 07:05 PM |
|
Rebel
Unregistered
|
RE: And the market's response to our new leader?
(01-20-2009 06:51 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote: (01-20-2009 06:50 PM)Rebel Wrote: Are you essentially calling our soldiers welfare recipients, you piece of ****? I didn't NEED the ******* Army. I did it out of tradition and honoring my country.
Did Uncle Sam pay your paycheck or not? Simple question. I already know the answer.
Lemme tell you something, kid, if you think deploying to some of the biggest shitholes in the world for military or humanitarian missions, waking up at 5AM to go to PT in 15 degree weather or pouring down rain, putting up entire AOs including tents, grounding shelters, camouflaging everything, digging in a perimeter, working from 12 to 20 hour days, sometimes working for 36 hours straight while deployed or in the field, being shot at, working for very little pay considering what my counterpart on the outside would make, months and years away from family, etc. is welfare, then you're a f'n idiot. I mean that in the most negative definition of the damn word.
|
|
01-20-2009 07:08 PM |
|
Rebel
Unregistered
|
RE: And the market's response to our new leader?
(01-20-2009 06:54 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote: You can't spend like there's no tomorrow and keep cutting taxes. It does not work, hence failed policy.
Then why in the hell did you vote for someone that's promising to do the EXACT same damn thing, only more?
|
|
01-20-2009 07:09 PM |
|