Desipio Message Board
November 21, 2014, 03:10:21 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Oct 12 - Oral History: Cubs hire Theo  http://www.desipio.com/?p=3639
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 207
  Print  
Author Topic: The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread  (Read 172807 times)
Bonk
Hank White Fan Club
***
Posts: 426



View Profile
« Reply #240 on: November 10, 2008, 04:44:07 PM »

Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.
Logged
morpheus
Johnny Evers Fan Club
*****
Posts: 2487


Sad.


View Profile
« Reply #241 on: November 10, 2008, 04:50:20 PM »

Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.

And HillaryCare.  Don't forget that.
Logged

I don't get that KurtEvans photoshop.
JD
I feel like 30 million dollars.
Johnny Evers Fan Club
*****
Posts: 2624


A JD you can get sweaty with and high 5!


View Profile
« Reply #242 on: November 10, 2008, 04:52:15 PM »

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp?pg=1

P.J. O'Rourke with an excellent, excellent post-mortem...

I remain unconvinced that the Right is dead for the foreseeable future.  My generation is unfamiliar with Reagan's America and even more unfamiliar with the role of socialism in the Twentieth century.  We have grown up in a Centrist America and never seen the results of empowering one side of the political spectrum.  You can bet that after four years, we will become familiar with the consequences of the Leftist paradigm shift.  Obama may well be an eight year president, as the basic fluctuations in the economy virtually assure that he will preside over an economic upturn.  But, don't expect the Left to be in power for ever.

Sooner or later, all the youth the voted for Obama will graduate from college, get jobs, and find themselves in the nations upper tax brackets.  Once they are the ones paying for it, the notion of a greater role for government won't be nearly as popular.  Sooner or later, all those idealists will see that involving the feds in healthcare and social welfare will work about as well as involving them in education and energy has. 

This too shall pass.

I really, really hope you're correct on this.

While I remain of the opinion that the Obama administration will prove far more pragmatic than ideological, the Right should already have plenty of opportunity to get its hackles up within the next few months when the Obama stimulus package winds up being more about infrastructure spending than captial gains relief.

That said, and disastrous "Leftist paradigm shift" or no, I'm not sure how you expect them to be taken seriously by anyone who is able to remember the last 8 years.

It's not just the GOP's massive failure at governance (though, to be fair, it's mostly that).

It's also conservatives' simple failure at living up to their own rhetoric.

So, when the GOP predictably cries "balanced budgets" or "tax and spend", we'll remember who presided over the magic disappearing budget surplus/$400-billion-plus deficit.

When the GOP warns of the manifest danger to personal liberty posed by an encroaching Federal government, we'll still remember them as the party of shitting all over habeas corpus and wiping with the 4th Amendment.

And, when the GOP urges "caution" in all matters progressive and chants a mantra of "social engineering," we'll also remember that, when faced with one of the most un-Burkean adventures in memory (the neo-con dream of "transforming the Middle East" via a democratic domino effect), the self-proclaimed intellectual heirs of Burke stood athwart history yelling "Let's roll."

Not that I totally disagree, but to be fair, the Senate was mostly 50-50 until 2006 (including a stretch of 2001-02 in which they Republicans briefly lost power entirely), and the Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and haven't done a thing. Except let their approval rating drop to 10 percent.

Congress has as much to do with an administration's outcome as the Commander in Chief.

Stupid balance of powers provision in the Constitution.

Well, I guess we'll get to see what they can do now.

Yes, we most certainly will.

That's what I was saying.
Logged

Can you help me live a little more?  I expect good news.
RV
Johnny Evers Fan Club
*****
Posts: 1908


View Profile
« Reply #243 on: November 10, 2008, 04:55:03 PM »

Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.

Up for debate. Some more detail:

http://www.slate.com/id/1037/
Logged
fiveouts
Hank White Fan Club
***
Posts: 502


Stud Wink.


View Profile
« Reply #244 on: November 10, 2008, 04:56:47 PM »

Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.

In terms of % of GDP, not only were there higher tax increases in history, one of them was by Ronald Reagan. 
« Last Edit: November 10, 2008, 05:00:30 PM by fiveouts » Logged
Bonk
Hank White Fan Club
***
Posts: 426



View Profile
« Reply #245 on: November 10, 2008, 05:04:53 PM »

Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.

Up for debate. Some more detail:

http://www.slate.com/id/1037/

Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.

The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.
Logged
Thrillho
Out of bed and full of beans!
Johnny Evers Fan Club
*****
Posts: 1908


Look out, Itchy, he's Irish!


View Profile
« Reply #246 on: November 10, 2008, 05:25:45 PM »

Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.

Up for debate. Some more detail:

http://www.slate.com/id/1037/

Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.

The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.

If 'everyone getting hurt' = the Clinton era, well... come on, baby, make it hurt so good.
Logged

FADE IN:

EXT. COUNTRY HWY - DITCH - ESTABLISHING

                BOZ
     I'm a...

We zoom in tight on BOZ'S intense fucking eyes

                BOZ
           (incredulous)
     ...BANKER?!

SPFX: Something FUCKING explodes! HOLY SHIT!
Chuck to Chuck
Johnny Evers Fan Club
*****
Posts: 3640


Making Pen Laugh since 1:42 PM


View Profile WWW
« Reply #247 on: November 10, 2008, 05:28:57 PM »

If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.
Unless that excess funds goes to retire debt which has several positive effects:

1) It reduces the need for future taxes by reducing interest paid in future years on the national debt.
2) It reduces interest rates as the government does not compete for investment dollars with private corporations
3) It reduces the amount of debt held overseas.  This does two positive things in a) lessening our dependence on foreign investment to maintain spending; and b) reduces the transfer of wealth overseas in the form of interest paid to foreign owners of debt.

Budget surplusses after years of deficits can be a positive and do not "hurt everyone."

If there are surplusses and no deficit to retire, then, yes.  Everyone is hurt if taxes are not lowered.
Logged
Bonk
Hank White Fan Club
***
Posts: 426



View Profile
« Reply #248 on: November 10, 2008, 05:59:14 PM »

Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.

Up for debate. Some more detail:

http://www.slate.com/id/1037/

Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.

The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.

If 'everyone getting hurt' = the Clinton era, well... come on, baby, make it hurt so good.

The Clinton era was balanced by the Republicans controlling Congress the final six years. That's why so much got done. I'm not knocking Clinton on this point, just saying it's not as simple as saying him being president is why the economy ran well in the 1990s, nor was it just because of Reagan that the 80s went well.

Logged
Bonk
Hank White Fan Club
***
Posts: 426



View Profile
« Reply #249 on: November 10, 2008, 06:03:43 PM »

If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.
Unless that excess funds goes to retire debt which has several positive effects:

1) It reduces the need for future taxes by reducing interest paid in future years on the national debt.
2) It reduces interest rates as the government does not compete for investment dollars with private corporations
3) It reduces the amount of debt held overseas.  This does two positive things in a) lessening our dependence on foreign investment to maintain spending; and b) reduces the transfer of wealth overseas in the form of interest paid to foreign owners of debt.

Budget surplusses after years of deficits can be a positive and do not "hurt everyone."

If there are surplusses and no deficit to retire, then, yes.  Everyone is hurt if taxes are not lowered.

Just to be clear, when you say "retire debt", you mean pay it off, right?

Overall, I agree. I'm a fan of smaller government, so obviously I would prefer cutting spending to raising taxes, but that's an obsolete idea.

Logged
Thrillho
Out of bed and full of beans!
Johnny Evers Fan Club
*****
Posts: 1908


Look out, Itchy, he's Irish!


View Profile
« Reply #250 on: November 10, 2008, 06:42:48 PM »

Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.

Up for debate. Some more detail:

http://www.slate.com/id/1037/

Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.

The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.

If 'everyone getting hurt' = the Clinton era, well... come on, baby, make it hurt so good.

The Clinton era was balanced by the Republicans controlling Congress the final six years. That's why so much got done. I'm not knocking Clinton on this point, just saying it's not as simple as saying him being president is why the economy ran well in the 1990s, nor was it just because of Reagan that the 80s went well.

I'm just trying to highlight the fact that, for some reason, in late 2008, you're apparently predicting that the 1993 Clinton tax plan will "hurt everyone."
« Last Edit: November 10, 2008, 06:44:45 PM by Thrillho » Logged

FADE IN:

EXT. COUNTRY HWY - DITCH - ESTABLISHING

                BOZ
     I'm a...

We zoom in tight on BOZ'S intense fucking eyes

                BOZ
           (incredulous)
     ...BANKER?!

SPFX: Something FUCKING explodes! HOLY SHIT!
Philberto
Johnny Evers Fan Club
*****
Posts: 1911



View Profile
« Reply #251 on: November 10, 2008, 07:09:32 PM »

Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.

Up for debate. Some more detail:

http://www.slate.com/id/1037/

Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.

The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.

If 'everyone getting hurt' = the Clinton era, well... come on, baby, make it hurt so good.

Here is just one item and I know there are more aspects to the economy than just the housing market but I've always felt that Librul economic policies usually think of the short term more and don't consider the long-term affects of their actions as much as they should: http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html  So while it may have been hurt that felt so good. It doesn't feel as good now..

*BTW, I'm not blaming Clinton because there are other factors, but he wasn't oh so innocent.
Logged
Bonk
Hank White Fan Club
***
Posts: 426



View Profile
« Reply #252 on: November 10, 2008, 08:04:27 PM »

Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.

Up for debate. Some more detail:

http://www.slate.com/id/1037/

Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.

The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.

If 'everyone getting hurt' = the Clinton era, well... come on, baby, make it hurt so good.

The Clinton era was balanced by the Republicans controlling Congress the final six years. That's why so much got done. I'm not knocking Clinton on this point, just saying it's not as simple as saying him being president is why the economy ran well in the 1990s, nor was it just because of Reagan that the 80s went well.

I'm just trying to highlight the fact that, for some reason, in late 2008, you're apparently predicting that the 1993 Clinton tax plan will "hurt everyone."

What I was pointing out was that story's overgeneralization that most of those taxes' effects were felt by the affleunt. It's my experience that when we resort to "taxing the rich" and those people have money taken away, everyone feels the impact.

The econony took a downturn toward the end of the 90s, and I believe there's a delay of several years before the ramifications of Washington hit the common man. Was that because of the '93 increase? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's not nearly as simple as saying that Clinton being in the White House is why the economy did well during his tenure.

We also spent a helluva a lot on Desert Storm right before he got in, which always has a positive economic impact.

As for the past couple of years, I think it's fair to hang blame for the struggling economy on the Republicans. The only I would say modestly in defense is that we had to pay for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (insert "we shouldn't have gone to Iraq" comment here), one of the worst natural disasters ever in Katrina, and the attack of the World Trade Centers.

So both parties suck, I guess is my point.
Logged
Internet Apex
SSM's Resident Octagonacologist
Johnny Evers Fan Club
*****
Posts: 9497


Ape X


View Profile
« Reply #253 on: November 10, 2008, 08:14:03 PM »

Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.

Up for debate. Some more detail:

http://www.slate.com/id/1037/

Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.

The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.

Fascist.
Logged

The 37th Tenet of Pexism:  Apestink is terrible.
Chuck to Chuck
Johnny Evers Fan Club
*****
Posts: 3640


Making Pen Laugh since 1:42 PM


View Profile WWW
« Reply #254 on: November 10, 2008, 09:02:19 PM »

The econony took a downturn toward the end of the 90s, and I believe there's a delay of several years before the ramifications of Washington hit the common man. Was that because of the '93 increase? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's not nearly as simple as saying that Clinton being in the White House is why the economy did well during his tenure.
Not.

Asian flu and Greenspan lowering rates here to try to prevent Asian pneumonia took the country out of a nice, stable, equilibrium.  The balance was lost, the economy hear overheated, things were tamped down, then 9/11.

The 2000 stock bubble and the 2001 recession were not related to the 1993 tax increases.  Just like the 1991 recession had nothing to do with Reagan's 1982 tax increases.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 207
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!