Trump Card

LOL!

I thought you would attack the messanger. Whats a matter you and Marshall can't find fault with the facts?


... Originally Posted by WTF

Stockman is faulting both sides of the political establishment for not solving our problems...I don't get your connection of this article to Reagan policy....where are you going with that?

Stockman is funny because he says you gotta tax the middle class to get us out of this mess, but doesn't want to cut middle class benefits...HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! A little hypocracy there! HA! HA! HA!

Also, Stockman has a very interesting definition of "poor"......HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Do I know who David Stockman is?.....or who he worked for?.....HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!v You love to say I don't know this, or I don't know that, but you never bet your money on it!.....HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

I dare you to answer the questions I posted above! Bet you can't! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

PJ remember that it is better to post articles by experts and have people think you an idiot than post you own idoitic thoughts and leave no doubt.
Originally Posted by WTF

I had to read this statement over 7 times because I couldn't believe WTF ACTUALLY posted it!!!!!!! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

"So in your view," I said to Cain, "America has too many crusts?"

"Yes!" Cain exclaimed, breaking into a long laugh. "America has too many crusts! And we've got to simplify things, clarify things so that we can achieve real progress."

"You get it!" Cain beamed.

Our fundamental problem is too damn much government!

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Anyway, ironically, they are back to four crusts:
Original
Golden (Pan)
Thin
& Gluten-free

I don't know if that is simple irony or something more...

Cain's story about the crusts is wonderful and makes a point very well, but I wonder if there isn't another lesson to be learned:

We can go back to basics and simplify, but over time we invariably take on more and revert to complexity..... Originally Posted by atlcomedy

You'll note that he no longer runs Godfathers -- hence the four crusts. The damn Liberals must have taken over there again. Originally Posted by pjorourke

But they're still pretty damn successful, aren't they?

I think ATL makes a good metaphorical point about basics and complexity. I think it's also indicative of the fact that what you think is a very simple solution is sometimes little more than a simplistic approach that will solve nothing.

I notice PJ seems more inclined to rail against big government than he is to comment on too much money in politics. What he seems to want is small government that caters to big money interests.

Well we took a chance on a community organizer. Think what someone who had actually accomplished something, instead of just compiling a resume, could do. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I've also noticed that your criticisms of Barack Obama are always vague, generic, rhetorical comments with no real specifics. You're nothing more than an empty suit.

I notice PJ seems more inclined to rail against big government than he is to comment on too much money in politics. What he seems to want is small government that caters to big money interests. Originally Posted by Doove

The first is the disease, the second is a symptom. If government didnt have excessive power, money would not be an issue.

I've also noticed that your criticisms of Barack Obama are always vague, generic, rhetorical comments with no real specifics. You're nothing more than an empty suit. Originally Posted by Doove

I think he is naive, has no concept of how the economy works, doesn't understand business, is ego centric and vindictive and is bound and determined to increase the power of government at the expense of free enterprise.

Is that specific enough for you?

The first is the disease, the second is a symptom. If government didnt have excessive power, money would not be an issue. Originally Posted by pjorourke

We've discussed this before. This idea that smaller government will cease to make government an investment for big monied interests was absurd then, and it's absurd now. Getting smaller won't make government better. Getting money out of government will make government better.

I think he is naive Originally Posted by pjorourke

Funny you should say that, given that i'm sure you voted for Bush.

has no concept of how the economy works, doesn't understand business,

Tell ya what, point me in the direction of whatever board you were on predicting the financial collapse that already occurred, and i'll consider you credible when it comes to your predicting the financial collapse that hasn't yet occurred. Otherwise you're just a blowhard know it all ideologue who can't stand the fact that your ideology has proven to be a failure.

is ego centric and vindictive

Even assuming you're correct, he's a politician. Show me one who isn't ego centric and vindictive. Talk about naive! Again, your criticisms are empty.

Is that specific enough for you?

Nope. You're still talking in generalities. Without details to back up your rhetoric, anyone in here could simply copy/paste your post and use it to claim that's what they think of anyone.

PWI?

I'd like to start a thread where we could stop the dogma and ideology.

Tax less = more money taken in for the government.

Or

Tax more and you can then spend more.


Come on now. What's really at stake.

Can I legally own my own land Mr Socialist, Marxist, Communist?
Will you kill me or imprison me if I disagree with you?

Can I make enough money to have the American dream for myself and my family Mr Capitalist?

Will you just think of me like a piece of equipment or an adversary instead of a human being?

Stockman is faulting both sides of the political establishment for not solving our problems...I don't get your connection of this article to Reagan policy....where are you going with that?
Originally Posted by Marshall

Yes he is and I agree with him. I am agreeing that it is both parties fault. That is where I am going with that. What he said was that Reagan's policy did not work long term. You praise Reagan. That is the mistake. How hard is that to understand?

Stockman is funny because he says you gotta tax the middle class to get us out of this mess, but doesn't want to cut middle class benefits...HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! A little hypocracy there! HA! HA! HA!

! Originally Posted by Marshall

No he said you need to do both. Raise tax and cut benefits. Comprehending what is said is hard to do when you are sitting to far out on either side. You are sitting to far to the right.

I dare you to answer the questions I posted above! Bet you can't! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Originally Posted by Marshall

There I answered it. Not that you will understand it from where you are sitting.

I'd like to start a thread where we could stop the dogma and ideology.

Tax less = more money taken in for the government.

Or

Tax more and you can then spend more.

? Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Do you really want to know the answer?

http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/4065

Economist Arthur Laffer made a very interesting supposition: If tax rates are high enough, then cutting taxes might actually generate more revenue for the government, or at least pay for themselves. (In one of life's great coincidences, he first sketched a graph of this idea on Dick Cheney's cocktail napkin.) If the government cuts taxes, then Uncle Sam gets a smaller cut of all economic activity -- but reducing taxes also generates new economic activity. Laffer reasoned that, under some circumstances, a tax cut would stimulate so much new economic activity that the government would end up with more in its coffers -- by taking a smaller slice of a much larger pie.

In fairness to Mr. Laffer, there's nothing wrong with this theory. It's almost certainly true at very high rates of taxation. If you consider the extreme, say a 99 percent marginal tax rate, then the government will probably not be collecting a lot of revenue. To begin with, citizens are going to hide as much income as possible. (The more honest ones will turn to barter and avoid the tax system entirely.) And no one is going to rush out and take a second job or build a factory if they get to keep only $1 of every $100 that they earn.

So it's entirely plausible that slashing tax rates from 99 percent to 30 percent could increase government tax revenues. It would deflate the black market and provide a huge new incentive to work and invest.

No Big Jolt for the U.S.

But here's the problem when we take Laffer's theory and try to apply it in the U.S.: We don't have a 99 percent marginal tax rate. Or 70 percent. Or even 50 percent. We start with low marginal tax rates relative to the rest of the developed world. (Yes, I understand that it may not feel that way after the check you wrote last month.)

So cutting the tax rate from 36 percent to 33 percent is not going to give you the same kind of economic jolt as slashing a tax rate from 90 percent to 50 percent. There's no huge black market to be shut down, no big supply of skilled workers to be lured back into the labor market, and so on.

Will it generate new economic activity? Probably. And that will generate some incremental tax revenue for the government. But remember, it also means that the government will be taking a smaller cut of all the economic activity that we already have

I appreciate you looking that up for me.
However, I want to know or understand what you truly believe.


I'm more interested in your system of government.

The liberals and progressives are far far different than the tea party.

I believe we all know and understand the end game of the tea party.
Don't try that racist shit either.

We don't really know and understand the end game of the liberals and progressives.

Their end society. If the puritans win we know life sucks but we can get by.

The liberal / progressives win. WTF happens?

I appreciate you looking that up for me.
However, I want to know or understand what you truly believe.


I'm more interested in your system of government.

The liberals and progressives are far far different than the tea party.

I believe we all know and understand the end game of the tea party.
Don't try that racist shit either.

We don't really know and understand the end game of the liberals and progressives.

Their end society. If the puritans win we know life sucks but we can get by.

The liberal / progressives win. WTF happens? Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

I believe you are full of it on this issue.

The Tea Party is full of it. They only want to cut certain segments of government , not all of if it. As such they are NO different than the so called 'liberal / progressives' that you rail aganist.

Therefore I believe you hate the very thing that you support. Seems insane to me. Call me crazy. You want an example. Local governments are laying off across the country, what will you Tea Folks bitch about during the 2012 election. I'll tell ya , unemployment.

Oh also I do not believe they (the Tea party folks bless their hearts) are racist anymore than anyone else but I do believe they are ignorant on the issues. Just like I (and D Stockman,President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget ) believe that 'liberal / progressives' are ignorant on the issues also.

My society is way less restrictive than theirs. Have you seen who they have elected? Social conservatives. I sure as hell do not want that. If left up to them, boards like this would not exist.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...t-capitol-hill


On today's broadcast, James Dobson interviewed Ralph & Danielle Drollinger, longtime friends of his who run an organization called Capitol Ministries, an organization that hosts regular Bible studies for, and ministers to, Members of Congress.
Among the members listed as sponsors on the organization's website are Todd Akin, Michele Bachmann, Paul Broun, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Sue Myrick, Mike Pence, Tom Price, Lamar Smith, Joe Wilson and various others.
Danielle was actually a former employee of Focus on the Family before Dobson helped her get a job as a staffer for a Congressional committee in Washington DC. After she and Ralph were married, they started Capitol Ministries with the intention of creating a nationwide "farm system" to cultivate conservative Christian candidates at the state and national level.
And, as Ralph explained, thanks to the rise of the Tea Party, all sorts of Religious Right candidates have been elected to Congress "under the radar":

Drollinger: That's right. And so now we've got this flood of new believers that have snuck in under the radar. And before, the secular media would always shoot our horses in the corral before they got out on the track. And now they've all snuck in under the radar and through the guise of being fiscally conservative they've rallied huge voter bases. They get elected and they happen to be believers and they're saying "let's fuel a movement for Christ in the nation's capital."

I
We don't really know and understand the end game of the liberals and progressives.
Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Ah yes, we do know....

there are 2 different kind of liberals, the ruling class liberals (RCL) and the commoner liberals (CL).....they are both statists who want big government in charge of everything because they believe people are too corrupt or stupid to take care of themselves.....they believe that people need to be protected from themselves....liberals believe they are the only smart ones who know what's best for everybody....

both RCL and CL want the perfect paradise on earth....they want all manner of success for all people of the earth, but they want all people equally successful....equality of result rather than equality of opportunity....they mostly have good intentions, but are misguided.....

the RCL have an evil side.....they are power hungry and want to stay in power.....they hate capitalism because capitalism is dynamic and economically disruptive. Those at the bottom can rise to the top, and those at the top can fall to the bottom.....they like socialism because socialism freezes the social/economic status quo.....the RCL believe they are smarter than other people and entitled to rule......

the RL are just dupes of the RCL......they think they are smart, but aren't smart enough to realize the RCL look upon them like any other member of the rabble....of course the CL are the RCL's "useful idiots".....

the problem with liberals is they don't understand human nature or fail to take it into account....we are constantly punished by their "good intentions".......

the Founding Fathers understood what liberals don't: Some government is necessary, but is corrupt and incompetent....people are capable of making the best decisions for themselves and people are able to take care of themselves......the only way to limit government's incompetence and corruption is to limit the size of government.....the Founding Fathers wanted to limit government to only those functions which people could not handle for themselves like national defense, courts, etc.....they also understood that any governmental action is best handled at the lowest possible level closest to the people [more control by people].....the FF understood that people have varying degrees of talent and ambition. They understood that some people will be more successful than others and they believed that people should be allowed to benefit from those talents and ambitions without the less talented and ambitions jealously and vengefully using government to steal from them...to the FF it was about equality of opportunity for all....freedom freedom freedom....the FF wanted us to be as free as possible from government......think about it: the FF wrote a Constitution and Bill of Rights that protects us from GOVERNMENT!

liberals [leftists] have created massive failure after massive failure, but still they continue to believe and implement the same failed policies....they are blinded by jealousy and hatred......

Getting smaller won't make government better. Originally Posted by Doove

See the liberal mind.........They worry about making government BETTER......to them bigger is better.....to them government is not better because THEY aren't in charge or somebody interfered with them making it better......government will NEVER get better......government will always be incompetent and corrupt.....smaller government means more freedom for the people.....get government out of their way and things will be better....make people free, free from government.....government is inherently evil but liberals want more evil!......the Constitution and Bill of Rights are suppose to protect us from government!