Taxation Without Representation

Previous presidents put the Soviet Union of life support enabling it to exist as long as it did. Reagan achieved his goal with the Soviet Union. . Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yes he did and without low oil prices he would not have. We are the inverse, we need low oil prices for our nation to rebound. That is not great for us Texans though! LOL

. From 1982 to 2000, the stock market climbed steadily, showing the heartiness of the free-market system. . Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yes and allot of that was opening up to the emerging markets but that has now turn against us as we have lost a huge portion of our middle class manufacturing jobs. And we have a hell of a hard time when oil prices are high.

The key factor is the economy. A broader tax base would mitigate some of the deficit. . Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yes and that is kinda what Reagan did by tinkering with SS. But that was a can kicker down the road. Nobody ever curves spending.

Ultimately, every interest group has to bring a sacred cow to the slaughter for real change to be effected. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

On that we are in 100% agreement!

I can ask someone who was there. My cousin served in the navy and his ship was unable to leave the pier because of critical repairs, lack of qualified crew, and no parts. I caught some of the same stuff under Carter, no schools or special training and old refabricated weapons. Reagan had to build up the military that Carter let down. The interesting thing is that Carter cut military spending (with the democratic congress) but didn't save any money. Explanation?

Russia is still there but the Soviet Union is not and it is a stupid thing to point out. Can you find East Germany on a map? Can you travel into Poland without a special pass? Where did Georgia, Belarus, and Ukraine come from?

While we are talking about taxes (we were?) I have an observation for the libs. You all want to help the poor, feed the hungry, and get the lame to walk but that costs money. How do you feel that for every dollar wasted on the GSA, Solyndra, green energy, and union bailouts means one less dollar for helping the poor, hungry, and lame. How do you reconcile that money wasted by the Obama administration when it could have helped people?

It’s more than a theory. It’s irrefutable historical fact. Reagan saw a crumbling wall, he applied pressure and the wall crumbled. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And if it was that easy, then they really couldn't have been much of a threat now, could they?

By bringing an end to the “Evil Empire,” Reagan sought to relieve the U.S. of the burdensome costs of the Cold War.

Then why are we still spending over 8X what the second highest spending country spends?

To keep you chest thumpers happy, that's why.

How do you feel that for every dollar wasted on the GSA, Solyndra, green energy, and union bailouts means one less dollar for helping the poor, hungry, and lame. How do you reconcile that money wasted by the Obama administration when it could have helped people? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Peanuts, compared to what we waste on defense spending. And oil subsidies.

Congress (97th thru 101st) ran up the debt. Not Reagan. The Democrats promised spending cuts in exchange for tax increases. Congress never cut spending.

Reagan wanted spending cuts; he agreed to tax increases in exchange for spending cuts. The Democratically controlled Congress never cut spending.

Reagan doubled the nations debt btw Originally Posted by WTF

BTW, this week Obama officially became the biggest debtor President ....$5 trillion in borrowing in 3 years!

The Democrats will not cut spending and will drive America into bankruptcy; which will devastate the middle class. Obama is not a friend to Americas ' middle class.

Congress (97th thru 101st) ran up the debt. Not Reagan. The Democrats promised spending cuts in exchange for tax increases. Congress never cut spending.

Reagan wanted spending cuts; he agreed to tax increases in exchange for spending cuts. The Democratically controlled Congress never cut spending. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Reagan had the veto pen Whirlaway.

Reagan wanted spending on Defense, again I ask you, "Do you really think the liberals were going to cut their pet programs while the Conseratives increased spending on their pet projects?"

What lind of deal do you get that isn't law? A wink and a excuse deal. That has been why we have had spending increases from day one. The GOP wants spending on Defense and agrees to liberal spending to get it and vice versa.

I can not help how stupid you are never. Just because you can't keep up does not mean I make no sense Originally Posted by WTF

i said everything you say is not relevant. because it isnt relevant.

you pull opinion out of your rear mixed in with with real people and real events (like reagan) from the dark past and apply a spin to them based on whatever it is you are trying to support. perhaps there is some glimmer of slight truth upon which you base your total obscuring irrelevant nonsense but to what avail?

we are circling the drain and no amount of taxation will cure it. you can tax the top one percent's income one hundred percent each year forever and not dent obama's deficit. and all you want to do is throw out stupid verbal roadblocks to common sense in here.

the 30% tax for people making over 1 million, the one obama tried to jump start his re-election campaign with that democrats in the senate sent to defeat?...its merely a doubling of the capital gains tax from 15% to 30%. every time the capital gains tax rate has been increased, tax receipts from it have gone down, every time the capital gains tax rate has been cut, tax receipts have gone up.

so what is the purpose of taxation? is it punishment? is it an attitude of we will show you? is it for spite or covetousness or this utterly stupid word that obama throws out there without meaning, for "fairness"?

taxation should be to raise money for the supposedly limited work of government. if a lower rate for capital gains raises more money what the hell is this stupid word "fairness" all about?

but the biggest issue is, the money taken IS WASTED, no matter what the tax is.


its not about taxing people, its about spending. until you get that, everything you say is irrelevant.

And if it was that easy, then they really couldn't have been much of a threat now, could they? Originally Posted by Doove

The U.S.S.R. was a very REAL threat. Go to D.C. and visit the Korean and Vietnam War memorials: read the names of the dead and missing and then swear by their names the U.S.S.R. wasn’t a threat. The atrocities at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games, the conflagration in El Salvador, the provincial wars in Africa, etc., were all backed, funded and often armed by the Soviet Union.

Then why are we still spending over 8X what the second highest spending country spends?

To keep you chest thumpers happy, that's why. Originally Posted by Doove

Only in your liberal, Kool Aid drinking, pea-brain.

Peanuts, compared to what we waste on defense spending. And oil subsidies. Originally Posted by Doove

You unequivocally defend giving money to companies like Solyndra – which show no return (in fact a loss) – but then decry government contracts to companies like Raytheon, Boeing, Chrysler, etc., which not only provide a product and a service, but they also show a return: they provide jobs for hard working Americans. How many jobs is Solyndra providing at the moment?

Obama told Charlie Gibson that even if increasing the capital gains tax did not increase revenue, he would still be for it "for puposes of fairness". This one statement defines Obama better than just about anything. He's actually admitting that it's desirable to simply make the rich less rich even if there is no other benefit. This is beyond the desire to redistribute wealth; this is pure class warfare. Rudy Giuliani said that when he heard Obama's statement about the capital gains tax, his jaw dropped.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUfo-RxkXA8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZqKdkucZ1w

The atrocities at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games, the conflagration in El Salvador, the provincial wars in Africa, etc., were all backed, funded and often armed by the Soviet Union. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Hell, Al-Qaida could have funded those.

You unequivocally defend giving money to companies like Solyndra

I didn't defend anything. I just pointed out that it's chump change compared to the $800B we spend every year on defense - $700B of which is more than we need to keep up with the rest of the world. And again, that's every year. So every 2 years we spend $1.2 TRILLION more than any other country on defense. It takes an awful lot of chutzpah to defend that, and then turn around and blame poor people for our rising debt.

And you're the guy who said that Reagan sought to relieve us of the burdensome costs of the cold war? Really? If that was his goal, then it seems he was a miserable failure.

– which show no return (in fact a loss) – but then decry government contracts to companies like Raytheon, Boeing, Chrysler, etc.,

What i "decry", like WTF, is the hypocrisy of those who want to spend my money on their pet projects, while calling me a socialist for my wanting to spend their money on my pet projects.

which not only provide a product and a service, but they also show a return: they provide jobs for hard working Americans.

So government money is no object when jobs are involved? Is that your position?

So government money is no object when jobs are involved? Is that your position? Originally Posted by Doove

Your position to date has been government handouts with no reciprocity from those receiving the money and benefits. So yes, jobs, products, services, etc., are preferable to the 'dole'.

Your position to date has been government handouts with no reciprocity from those receiving the money and benefits. So yes, jobs, products, services, etc., are preferable to the 'dole'. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

IB welfare moms have the job of raising their kids. Just like Mitt s wife. Lol

IB welfare moms have the job of raising their kids. Just like Mitt s wife. Lol Originally Posted by WTF

It's a well documented fact that government services undermine the traditional husband-wife (father-mother) household: single mother's living 'alone' qualify for more government aid than do married mothers living with the fathers of their children.

It's a well documented fact that government services undermine the traditional husband-wife (father-mother) household: single mother's living 'alone' qualify for more government aid than do married mothers living with the fathers of their children. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Illegitimacy has increased dramatically since LBJ cranked up the "Great Society". The Demonrats tied the welfare checks to breeding out of wedlock and many people were happy to comply. The Demonrats want to create a permanent underclass that will vote Demonrat generation after generation. They have largely succeeded.