|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Jul 14, 2012 11:50:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Jul 15, 2012 12:03:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Jul 21, 2012 22:00:08 GMT -5
It is strange how everything can stay stable, or go up, except for employment.
No big deal though, any day now that trickle down theory will kick in and make everything right again! Just wait and see they would never leave Amereicans in poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Jul 29, 2012 16:39:27 GMT -5
Trickel down did work it saved us from the late 70s.Poor people don't buy superdutys
|
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Aug 1, 2012 16:16:21 GMT -5
Trickle down did not work.
Since the mid 70's income levels for ALL americans but the top 5% are flat, OR WORSE.
The whole damned population is moving backwards in income since the implementation of supply side economics.
We have four decades of data, and it proves it.
But if it makes you feel better.............
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Aug 2, 2012 7:54:20 GMT -5
Any day now...
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Aug 6, 2012 13:07:36 GMT -5
What Ronald did got us out if the 70s crap.He lowered taxes and gave us real hope and pride in america again.Why we are here now is business is taxed to much and to much regulation.We have naffta and gatt that cost us millions of good paying jobs.Both sides sold us out on that.We have almost nobody caring where something is made so we bought imported
the,textiles, electronics,tools,cars and on and on.That costs us millions of good paying jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Aug 6, 2012 13:11:03 GMT -5
So all this regulation and tax and now soon to be more expense free heathcare is going to do nothing but make more jobs leave this country.Like Ronald once said government IS THE PROBLEM.
What he did worked and we as americans put him back into office in a land
slide.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Aug 6, 2012 13:14:09 GMT -5
My uncle has a small gas station the government made him put in 12000.00 dollars of stainless steal table tops just so he could sale sandwiches.How many years and sandwiches is it going to take him ti make that up.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Aug 6, 2012 13:14:35 GMT -5
It up
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Aug 9, 2012 1:49:19 GMT -5
What Reagen did for us was to leave us with an ideology of "reduce taxes for the rich, and let the middle and lower income brackets finance the govt." Of course he also left us with a record setting debt by the time he left office. That was as productive for the working class as shipping millions of jobs overseas.
Between that and making it acceptable to break unions under any circumstance has really screwed us. He had a great image as a cowboy, but he didn't leave the nation better than he received it. What he did worked great for the rich.
As far as your uncle, how reasonable is it that people may unknowingly risk eating food prep'ed on a surface that has a higher risk of containing germs or harmful bacteria that can cause sickness or death? In turn, causing those people to lose pay from missing work; making that employer keep a higher amount of employees to cover absenteeism; costing the employee out of pocket for deductibles; costing everyone more in insurance premiums.
I know you are against any form of regulation of business, but some of it is there to protect people.
I'm curious, why are people (especially as workers) regulated to prevent them from causing harm (loss of any potential profit) to businesses, but a huge outcry goes out if businesses are expected to use practices to prevent harm to people?
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Aug 12, 2012 18:15:50 GMT -5
Reagan lowered everyones tax not just the rich.My uncle the big business owner doesn't make big money.I make more than him a year after all his expenses
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Aug 12, 2012 18:17:22 GMT -5
The nation was light years better under him than carter I don't see how u can say it wasn't
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Aug 12, 2012 18:18:58 GMT -5
Uncle made food for many many years never killed anyone.Some regs are needed but we gave way to many now
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Aug 13, 2012 6:02:06 GMT -5
Simple, those tax breaks contributed to a record deficit at the end of his term; plus he struck a major blow to unions that we are still feeling today. Those two things alone made this nation worse for workers than he received it.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Aug 13, 2012 8:20:35 GMT -5
The house controls spending not president and who had the house then?2nd more tax money. Was collected under Reagan after his across the board. Tax cuts.Even kennedy cut taxes in the 60s
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Aug 13, 2012 8:25:11 GMT -5
Also was against the law for federal workers to strike.He did what he had to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Aug 13, 2012 11:59:59 GMT -5
The house controls spending not president and who had the house then?2nd more tax money. Was collected under Reagan after his across the board. Tax cuts.Even kennedy cut taxes in the 60s Your first point suggests that the house was completely responsible for the deficit, but the tax cut was 100% Reagen. Despite the simple flaw in your argument to separate taxes and debt, it shows your bias attempt to place the negative part of the same equation on the other "team," and find a way to credit the positive portions on your team only. The flaw is something that could be discussed, and a reasonable conclusion is possible. The problem in justifying one side all the time is that at some point it will prevent reasonable discussions, because one side will do whatever it takes to "win" the discussion. Where you see tax cuts as good, I see it as contributing to a bigger problem of debt. Therefore, the house involvement does not take away from Reagens contributions to the national debt. If both Reagan and the house are responsible, give credit and blame to both. We need to stop whitewashing history just to keep a positive image of someone or something. |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Aug 13, 2012 12:04:14 GMT -5
Also was against the law for federal workers to strike.He did what he had to do. Laws are created by humans, and are just as fallible as we are. The law of the land allowed slavery at one time. That law was wrong and so is any law preventing any worker from striking. |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Aug 13, 2012 12:46:16 GMT -5
You cant have federal workers going on strike or putting the public in danger.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Aug 13, 2012 12:48:12 GMT -5
House house is 100 percent responsible for money spent
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Aug 13, 2012 14:57:42 GMT -5
You cant have federal workers going on strike or putting the public in danger. In what way did air traffic controllers endanger our safety by going on strike? It didn't, it just threatened the income of an industry, which goes back to regulating workers. |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Aug 13, 2012 15:02:32 GMT -5
House house is 100 percent responsible for money spent If you cut your income, that is going to affect your ability to pay your bills. Cutting taxes is just as effective at raising deficits as increasing spending. |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Aug 13, 2012 15:28:52 GMT -5
We need to cut all spending across the board not raise tax.I do agree with u on the air controllers
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Aug 13, 2012 16:18:04 GMT -5
With the deficit as it is i don't see any other option but cut across the board. However you frame taxes I see no problem with everyone paying the same amount as they did throughout the 90's when the economy seemed fairly prosperous.
|
|
