Republican debates/primaries.

• BoatShoes

  jmog;1777300 wrote:Did I say in 2014? I know you like to twist people's words, but I was talking about the economic collapse that they had to get bailed out of a few years ago.

  Collapse:
  
  A verb which means to break down; come to nothing; fail.
  
  
  The European Union has never gone through anything remotely close to a collapse. Greece and Spain are going through tough times and that is because of the EURO more than anything.
• QuakerOats

  jmog;1777289 wrote:You have already seen the result. Less hours and kiosks doing what a cashier does. How is that helping the workers? Come on Zwick, they were told this would happen, said "no it won't" and in Cities where min wage has been raised workers are replaced with machines.
  
  That and/or the cost of living has gone up (prices for Chipotle, etc) to cover the higher wages. So, what did those workers gain? Either they lost their job, get less hours, or the prices for most things in their area went up.
  
  Basic econimics told politicians this would happen and it did.

  
  BIG government lives in a static world; it is incapable of understanding economic dynamics. Liberals support BIG government, ergo ............
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1777302 wrote:Be intellectually honest BS. He said revenues, you post a graph about deficits.
  
  It it is well documented that Raegan wanted spending cuts to go with the tax cuts. The D held Congress promised spending cuts would come later. They never came.

  Our discussion was around the notion that one need not cut spending when one cuts taxes because no deficit will result. He is wrong - as always. But in any case, it did not increase revenue.
  

  the Office of Tax Analysis estimates that the act lowered federal income tax revenue by 13% relative to where it would have been in the bill's absence

  https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf
  
  not to mention that Congress was not held by Democrats. The Senate was under the control of the Republican party and many of the Democrats in the house were conservative southerners who would be Republicans today e.g. Georgia, Texas, Alabama and Mississippi all had a majority Democratic delegation.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;1777313 wrote:Collapse:
  
  A verb which means to break down; come to nothing; fail.
  
  
  The European Union has never gone through anything remotely close to a collapse. Greece and Spain are going through tough times and that is because of the EURO more than anything.

  
  
  No; it is because they want to lounge around all week and hope someone else pays for their lack of production.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  GD, I hate politards
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1777299 wrote:Germany's economy is not nearly as socialist as the others. Compared to the rest of the European Union Germany is a staunch capitalist nation, even if they are more socialist than the US. So yes, the most capitalist company in the union had to bail out he more socialist ones.

  You're incorrect - again. Latvia, Poland, Ireland and Ireland are less "socialist" than Germany. Germany has a social market economy similar to the social democracies of Scandinavia.
  
  But, I figure you take it to mean public social expenditures and as you can see Germany spends much more in that way than several other EU member states.
  
  
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;1777319 wrote:Our discussion was around the notion that one need not cut spending when one cuts taxes because no deficit will result. He is wrong - as always. But in any case, it did not increase revenue.
  
  
  
  https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf
  
  not to mention that Congress was not held by Democrats. The Senate was under the control of the Republican party and many of the Democrats in the house were conservative southerners who would be Republicans today e.g. Georgia, Texas, Alabama and Mississippi all had a majority Democratic delegation.

  
  
  You post a lot of charts; too bad you can't read one. how about just looking at two numbers and comparing them:
  
  
  Receipts 1980 > $517 billion
  
  Receipts 1990 > $1,032 billion
  
  This is a 100% increase.
  
  During this time” the U.S. economy grew by more than one-third in real terms (34.3%), much faster than the 24.3% rate expected even by economists within the Reagan administration. Thus, by the time President Reagan left office, the economy was generating more tax revenue at a maximum 28% rate than many on the left forecast it to generate at a maximum 70% rate.”
  
  
  
  Spin that.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1777298 wrote:Stating Noah's ark was a possibility and not precluded by science is not the same as saying it was a historical fact. Given the fact that if it did happen written language did not exist at the time you are 100% wrong, it is NOT a history discussion, it is a science/archaeology discussion. History discussions can only be had on things that have been written down by historians. Hard to write something down that happened or didn't happen before written language existed.
  
  Canada just elected someone, as in recently. Give them time, they will either fail financially like all other socialist nations have or they will become the first that doesn't. Stating someone was JUST elected doesn't disprove history as there has not been time yet to see the results. Greece, USSR, Italy, Spain, all recent socialist economies that failed miserably, and you want to point to a just elected Canadian official? You can't be serious.

  STAHP! you believe Noah's Ark was real and that dinosaurs were on it and that is what you tell your kids. You ain't gotzta play coy.
  
  Canada has had some form of Single-Payer since 1966. No sign of collapse. Hope that helps.
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1777325 wrote:You post a lot of charts; too bad you can't read one. how about just looking at two numbers and comparing them:
  
  
  Receipts 1980 > $517 billion
  
  Receipts 1990 > $1,032 billion
  
  This is a 100% increase.
  
  During this time” the U.S. economy grew by more than one-third in real terms (34.3%), much faster than the 24.3% rate expected even by economists within the Reagan administration. Thus, by the time President Reagan left office, the economy was generating more tax revenue at a maximum 28% rate than many on the left forecast it to generate at a maximum 70% rate.”
  
  
  
  Spin that.

  Sigh...tax revenue will go up in nominal dollars every year because the economy grows just as it has also done in the Obama years. At least I am enjoying this entertainment on this boring work day.
  
  Receipts in current dollars
  
  1980 - $517.1 billion - 18.5% of GDP
  
  1988 - $909.2 billion - 17.8% of GDP
  
  ----$392.1 billion short of "Doubling Tax Revenue" even in terms of current dollars (but way to add on George H.W. Bush's years to make your fUzzy mAff work).
  
  After the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut - Tax Revenue as a Percentage of GDP dropped from 19.1% of GDP to 17% of GDP by 1983.
  
  http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
  
  
  Can't accept reality but hey when a New Yorker who supports Single Payer is leading for the Republican ticket and no pubs ever cut spending (cough cough Paul Ryan giving Obama everything in the Omnibus) this is what one is left to resort to.
  
  Very entertaining for me though! : thumbup:
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1777325 wrote:During this time” the U.S. economy grew by more than one-third in real terms (34.3%), much faster than the 24.3% rate expected even by economists within the Reagan administration. Thus, by the time President Reagan left office, the economy was generating more tax revenue at a maximum 28% rate than many on the left forecast it to generate at a maximum 70% rate.”

  Income was taxed at 28% but so was investment income which is bad. Rubio's plan for instance leaves additions to savings tax free and thereby makes his tax plan ultimately a consumption tax.
• QuakerOats

  2007 Deficit = $160 billion
  
  Then obama follows up with an 8-year average deficit of $912 BILLION per year. CRIMINAL.
  
  And yet we have had no growth which proves yet again that government deficit spending does not spur economic activity or growth; it only penalizes taxpayers and the poor down the road with higher prices.
  
  
  
  But please, keep spewing your marxist propaganda; you are obviously into the Chardonnay early today.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;1777335 wrote:Can't accept reality but .........................

  "...the U.S. economy grew by more than one-third in real terms (34.3%), much faster than the 24.3% rate expected even by economists within the Reagan administration. Thus, by the time President Reagan left office, the economy was generating more tax revenue at a maximum 28% rate than many on the left forecast it to generate at a maximum 70% rate.”
  
  
  That is the reality. Sorry it does not comport with today's progressive talking points.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  QuakerOats;1777320 wrote:No; it is because they want to lounge around all week and hope someone else pays for their lack of production.

  I'm going to guess that you've never spent any time in Greece of Spain, probably never worked closely with people there. If you had, I doubt you'd parrot the tired BS of your right wing windbags and make ignorant generalizations about entire nations.
  
  I'll give Rush and friends credit for one thing. They saw an entire army of ignorant people like you who were waiting to be spoon fed emotional story lines. The play is: simplify an issue or create one out of nothing, blame someone for it, cast "us" on the side of good and "them" on the side of evil, blame some more. It works for grade school boys and ditto heads like you.
• FatHobbit

  

  BoatShoes;1777237 wrote: In fact, as Drudge linked to the other day...Canada (along with Germany and the United Kingdom - both of which have much more socialized healthcare systems than the United States) was ranked higher than the United States in the list of "Best Countries in the World"
  
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/01/20/these-are-the-worlds-best-countries-sorry-america-youre-number-4/

  I find it very interesting that Germany is ranked #1. My wife is German and she wants us to move to Germany. We were looking into it, and in my field I would have to take a 40% pay cut and then I would be in a 54% income tax bracket. Housing is more expensive. Most people rent because they can't afford to buy. Cars are much more expensive. Fuel is much much more expensive. Clothes and groceries are much more expensive. They pay a 19% vat on everything. It just didn't make sense.
• sleeper

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1777342 wrote:I'm going to guess that you've never spent any time in Greece of Spain, probably never worked closely with people there. If you had, I doubt you'd parrot the tired BS of your right wing windbags and make ignorant generalizations about entire nations.
  
  I'll give Rush and friends credit for one thing. They saw an entire army of ignorant people like you who were waiting to be spoon fed emotional story lines. The play is: simplify an issue or create one out of nothing, blame someone for it, cast "us" on the side of good and "them" on the side of evil, blame some more. It works for grade school boys and ditto heads like you.

  This strategy is not merely a Republican one either. This is politics in America in 2016 and it's been that way for a while now.
• QuakerOats

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1777342 wrote:I'm going to guess that you've never spent any time in Greece of Spain, probably never worked closely with people there. If you had, I doubt you'd parrot the tired BS of your right wing windbags and make ignorant generalizations about entire nations.
  
  I'll give Rush and friends credit for one thing. They saw an entire army of ignorant people like you who were waiting to be spoon fed emotional story lines. The play is: simplify an issue or create one out of nothing, blame someone for it, cast "us" on the side of good and "them" on the side of evil, blame some more. It works for grade school boys and ditto heads like you.

  
  Greek unemployment - 25%
  Greek youth unemployment - 48%
  
  I deal in facts; you parrot the liberals who want to blame problems they create on guys like Rush Limbaugh. Hilarious.
• QuakerOats

  And as for Spain:
  
  
  
  Economists say one key reason for Spain’s persistently poor job performance is the relatively large number of workers with low levels of education, and limited employable skills. For these workers, the property boom was a godsend, because it created huge demand for casual labour on building sites. When construction ground to a halt, millions of low-skilled jobs vanished, perhaps never to return. Another key reason for Spain’s unemployment problem is that unemployed workers typically stay on the dole for longer than in other countries, not least because there is little pressure to look for new jobs straight away. Finally, Spanish employers rely heavily on temporary workers, who often find themselves unemployed as they wait for a new contract. This high degree of fluctuation in the labour market translates into higher average unemployment.
  
  
  
  
  I deal in facts; sorry the facts don't support your idealistic notion that socialism or marxism work. History has proven time and again, they don't.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  QuakerOats;1777359 wrote:Greek unemployment - 25%
  Greek youth unemployment - 48%
  
  I deal in facts; you parrot the liberals who want to blame problems they create on guys like Rush Limbaugh. Hilarious.

  I don't parrot anyone. I was merely pointing out your making generalizations about whole nations - a sign of intellectual weakness. I have spent time personally and professionally in both places. Never did I come to the conclusion that "they want to lounge around all week and hope someone else pays for their lack of production."
  
  You make a judgement with no contextual understanding from your parochial viewpoint in Ohio, USA.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  sleeper;1777350 wrote:This strategy is not merely a Republican one either. This is politics in America in 2016 and it's been that way for a while now.

  You're right about that. And Rush is successful because he's really good at what he does. I will never argue that.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1777313 wrote:Collapse:
  
  A verb which means to break down; come to nothing; fail.
  
  
  The European Union has never gone through anything remotely close to a collapse. Greece and Spain are going through tough times and that is because of the EURO more than anything.

  The USSR collapsed due to the economy. Greece and Spain would have if not for the huge bailout and still went through a recession that made ours of 2009 look like a cake walk. You can play semantics and blame a currency all you want, their economies collapsed and they had to be bailed out.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  QuakerOats;1777320 wrote:No; it is because they want to lounge around all week and hope someone else pays for their lack of production.

  
  It just struck me - are you a scientologist? You use their lingo. I remember watching a tape of this nut job woman defending the scientology building in Clearwater, FL. She was going on and on about "your production" and "someone else's production". It was funny and weird. You sound like that.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1777327 wrote:STAHP! you believe Noah's Ark was real and that dinosaurs were on it and that is what you tell your kids. You ain't gotzta play coy.
  
  Canada has had some form of Single-Payer since 1966. No sign of collapse. Hope that helps.

  
  Notice you still resort to "well you're stupid because you believe this" as evidence you are correct. You ignore the FACT that things that happened before written history is NOT history but a science/archaeology discussion. You threw in a science/archaeology belief that you assume I own as proof I don't know history.
  
  That's like me pointing out Belly's lack of grammar as proof he is a bad husband. I point that out to you and you jump right back on the same comment like a dog on a bone.
  
  Admit it, you were wrong, that Noah's Ark discussion has nothing to do with history and move on. Jump off that and use actual information that doesn't come from a left wing site as some evidence.
• QuakerOats

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1777365 wrote:It just struck me - are you a scientologist? You use their lingo. I remember watching a tape of this nut job woman defending the scientology building in Clearwater, FL. She was going on and on about "your production" and "someone else's production". It was funny and weird. You sound like that.

  No
• QuakerOats

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1777362 wrote:I don't parrot anyone. I was merely pointing out your making generalizations about whole nations - a sign of intellectual weakness. I have spent time personally and professionally in both places. Never did I come to the conclusion that "they want to lounge around all week and hope someone else pays for their lack of production."
  
  You make a judgement with no contextual understanding from your parochial viewpoint in Ohio, USA.

  
  Perhaps you were engaging with the 50% of the country that holds a productive job; good for you.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  Wondering what anyone on here thinks of National Review's attempted take down of Trump's candidacy. They put together essays from 10-20 most recognizable conservative voices with the theme that Trump was horrible for the conservative cause and should be dismissed by voters. Quite a move by a leading voice of the right.
  
  Of course, Quaker et al will wait and get their talking points from Fox and Rush. But for the rest, opinions?