Thank you barack obama ! a great president

Oct 8, 2010 8:50 pm

[quote=BondGuy]

ND, you've out done yourself here! That's quite the list! If only my friend's sister had known you her outcome would have been so much better! You are the man!

[/quote]

Thank you and I do not mind the facetious tone of your response. I had this list fresh in my mind (along with many others) because we are on the tail end of going through the same thing (all be it a different kind of cancer) with my father-n-law. Long story short, he is "financially" poor but is a good man that unfortunately made many bad decisions in life. My wife has been with him two states away for two weeks now. The doctors hope for two months.

Like I said before, It can feel overwhelming to face cancer without health insurance. Many without insurance are able to obtain excellent care, but it usually takes persistence and creativity.

I do not know anything about you friend's sister or her situation. But I will say that there are many programs, community groups, libraries, families and friends that can help. I am guessing but find it hard to believe that people are that cold and very shrug where you are at. Here in the south, we are passionate about helping people in our communities directly and not behind or through an inefficient government body. But I must add that someone has to ask for help before anyone will know they need it.

[quote=BondGuy]

As for charitable contributions i can only speak for myself. I give charitble contributions to organzations and people I believe in. That I get to deduct it from my taxes doesn't enter into the equation. If you understood what charity is, you would know it's not about saving tax dollars. it's about giving, not saving! it's about the cause!!!! For example, my grandson has Autism. It's heartbreaking!!! So, that gets a lot of dough right now. We work with a few good organizations, Elliott Sadler, and some others. You really need to get a clue.

There is one other person i can speak for with regard to charitable contributions, you. You don't give from the heart, you give from the pocketbook. You give to save paying taxes. At least that's what you've posted here. That's sad! my sinerest hope for you is that life doesn't test you to a degree that you find out just how sad.

Sorry the boat bothers you so much. We kinda like it.

[/quote]

You can't have it both ways. Either the government does "charitable" work or not. According to you, the rich are against the poor because the rich do not support government "charitable" programs. But the rich give to the poor in so many different ways besides via tax code. Why do you act like it is a "bad thing" for the rich to give their money to charitable organizations directly? Do you actually hold yourself above others because you allocate your "excess" income to those that need it via IRS and multiple governmental bodies?

Its not a rich/poor thing like you try to make it out to be. It is a control thing. The rich want to control what they have and what they give. The fewer hands it can go through the more affect they feel will be provided from their dollars. You understand leverage right? The excess expenses of "middle management"? The government is inefficient in every way imaginable.

p.s. the boat doesn't bother me as much as I am sure it bothers the homeless people you speak of that could be fed, clothed and sheltered with the money you spent on the boat. I don't fault you for rewarding yourself for many years of hard work and building a successful business. I do think it is hypocritical for you to make statements about what other people choose to do with THEIR money.

Oct 9, 2010 1:40 am

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=lovindaindy]

Bondguy - I'm sorry we disagree too. Except that I'm right.

When you capture someone and they specifically tell you that they came from Syria or Iran or Palestine because they knew going to Iraq they could "kill Americans", and that is the consensus for ALL of the people you capture on raids, it's called statistically significant.

Western Europe and the rest of the world has shown their weakness. Bending knee to radicalism thinking that they won't, with the sweep of a sword, cut your head off.

This is one of those situations, that, unless you have been there (actually on the ground running missions - NOT in the TOC or back at the FOB like a good little Fobbit), you CAN'T know what you are talking about.

Not to mention, that when I wasn't running missions I was helping the Iraqi people. You aren't going to make Iraq a democracy overnight. They are not going to be able to sustain their own military overnight. It takes a LOT of time.

Further, the Iraq War as people try to call it, is actually the Persian Gulf War. It was a resumption of hostilities. Bush didn't need an excuse. He didn't START that war. HIs father did. The problem was that, as much as I love Clinton, he didn't have the balls to attack after Saddam REPEATEDLY violated the cease-fire agreement.

So basically, Bush did his job. I am proud to have served in that conflict. The good done FAR outweighs any perceptions that people here got from watching the news.

[/quote]

So were on the same page, my perceptions aren't media based.

Your argument that you had to be there to know what your talking about is far off base. Do i know what it's like to shoot someone in war? No! But i don't have to know that to know that the Vietnam war was a failure. Iraq is no different.

The latest casualty count for Iraq that i can find is 4424 American service men and woman dead. Over 31,000 wounded. If you have different numbers, by all means please share it.

That being the cost, question: What did we gain in exchange?

[/quote]

We gained several things:

1) Battle-hardened veterans who can lead our soldiers in tomorrow's wars.

2) Removal of a genocidal maniac

3) An ally

4) I don't know about others, but my squad alone captured or killed over 50 terrorists from various countries.

5) A foothold in the Middle east (although that's gone now, and that IS thanks to Obama)

6) Professional military relationships between individual officers and NCOs on both sides

7) Good will of the MAJORITY of Iraqi people.

8) Integration among schools in Iraq.

9) A generation of Iraqis who "get it".

I could go on.

Not to marginalize the deaths (I have a family member among them, buried in Arlington), but the percentage of deaths pursuant to these two wars is not statistically significantly different from those killed in training accidents. And guess what? Training accidents dropped SIGNIFICANTLY during these wars. What does this tell you? Training works! Same goes for injuries.

Iraq IS different. Significantly different. Those who served in both wars can tell you. I'm not old enough.

As for your breast cancer friend, I'm sorry.

But I certainly don't think that it is my responsibility to pay her medical bills. Health care isn't a right. Just like retirement isn't a right. We tried to say home ownership was a right, but look where that got us. College is a right now apparently, and guess where that's leading?

Oct 9, 2010 1:26 pm

Nettlesome - Instead of attacking me, attack what i've written. Oh, that's right, you can't ! because what I've posted is truth. Ronnie threw the homeless to the street and said the money saved would be funneled to community mental health care intiatives. Funny thing though, the money never made it to the community. Ronnie was looking to cut spending, he found a helpless group thast couldn't fight back. How very republican! The rest is history.

You said you aren't racist. Thanks for clearing that up. I could talk about the 'Southern Strategy" and how it's legacy is still in play in the repub party. That would really piss you off.

You are a confused individual. You agree that the bailouts were necessary, yet you fully support the Tea Party which totally disagrees with that viewpoint. And i'm the one who sounds foolish?

So, the next time we need an economy saving bailout, what, we just let the ship roll over?

Oct 10, 2010 4:16 am

[quote=BondGuy]

Nettlesome - Instead of attacking me, attack what i've written. Oh, that's right, you can't ! because what I've posted is truth. Ronnie threw the homeless to the street and said the money saved would be funneled to community mental health care intiatives. Funny thing though, the money never made it to the community. Ronnie was looking to cut spending, he found a helpless group thast couldn't fight back. How very republican! The rest is history.

You said you aren't racist. Thanks for clearing that up. I could talk about the 'Southern Strategy" and how it's legacy is still in play in the repub party. That would really piss you off.

You are a confused individual. You agree that the bailouts were necessary, yet you fully support the Tea Party which totally disagrees with that viewpoint. And i'm the one who sounds foolish?

So, the next time we need an economy saving bailout, what, we just let the ship roll over?

[/quote]

You continue to make accusations without citing any sources... Reagan may not have wanted to increase the size of government but he did sign the McKinney-Vento Act.

I hate to use wikipedia as a source but it is the easiest for this reply and can led you, and anyone else that may be curious about your accusations, a place to start looking.

[quote=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinney-Vento_Act]

It was the first significant federal legislative response to homelessness, and was passed and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on July 22, 1987. This legislation is considered landmark legislation for the homeless.

[/quote]

You are obviously in way over your head boy. You have been exposed for what you are. Best advice for you is to just forget this thread is here and go back to helping newbs pitch bonds.

p.s. Nettles does not have to agree with the entire platform to align personal beliefs with a platform.

Oct 10, 2010 4:40 pm

I gotta hand it to you two, ND and nettlesome. I'll getting a good laugh here. In my opening post on this thread i stated 'Stupidity on parade!" Wow, was that understatement ! ND, at first i took you as nettle's intelligent alter ego. But, not so much now. Both of you are unaware of not only what is happening now but have absolutely no idea of the history of the republican party. Your blind support is emblematic of of why we are so polarized today. the facts don't matter. To top it off, you are fully engaged on finacial issues and just as disengaged on social welfare issues. Help yourself, all over it! help your poor brother - no effin way! Like i said - self centered bastards!

You've got to go back 23 years to find an example where a republican did something good for the poor. That should tell you something right there. And, if you really knew the truth you wouldn't have brought his up.

Because you are obviously unware let me tell how it was 30 years ago. Reagan slashed every soical program he could get his hands on. The mentally ill, denfenseless, were an easy target. So were the poor. The budget for low cost housing went from 32 billion under Carter to under 7 billion under reagan. You can't cut a housing budget by 80% without hurting people.

This move ballooned the homeless into a national problem. Thus the McKinney Act. Which reagan, realizing he couldn't win a Veto agaist a dem congress and senate, signed RELUCTANTLY! The repubs have taken every opportunity to gut this act ever since.

Reagan didn't want to help the homeless, he was forced to.

Patti Davis in a article written for Parade Magazine: I was afraid i'd be recognised while jogging ( on the streets of DC) and confronted about the homeless. What would i say if asked why i didn't argue wtih my father about this national tragedy? How do you argue with someone who states the people who are sleeping on the streets of america 'Are homeless by choice?"

Patti was referring to Reagans's response to the question posed shortly before Christmas "How do feel about the homeless sleeping in the park across the street from the White House?" His response 'it is their choice to be sleeping out there"

ND, I believe reagan sums up your view of the poor quite well. You've shown quite clearly that you don't understand the root cause of the issues. it is you who is in way over his head. That you are supported by the resident Mensa Member here on RR doesn't help your cause.

You've also made it clear that you don't donate to charity unless there is something in it for you. For you, charity is a financial issue. And, somehow you still see yourself as a good Christian?

I don't get that, and i never will. "What's in it for me?' Not in any Bible i've ever read, yet you, and nettle live by these words.

Lastly, on your cheap shot about the boat, giving the money to the poor, is that Communism or socialism? Because it's one or the other, and since it's your beleif system maybe you could explain it to me? ( and don't let the Tea baggers find out you feel this way. That'll really get'em riled up!)

Oct 10, 2010 8:11 pm

OBama May Be In Deep Trouble

Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court.

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues.

Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.

Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,'when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.

As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and so on.

And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'

Apparently, the Court has had enough.

The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven.

A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.

Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something.

And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim.

The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'

Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President.

The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court.

Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years.

Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ suing the state of Arizona.

That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party.

The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls.

A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.

Oct 11, 2010 12:32 am

It is really getting old now but for whatever reason, I will reply yet again...

[quote=BondGuy]

....This move ballooned the homeless into a national problem. Thus the McKinney Act. Which Reagan, realizing he couldn't win a Veto agaist a dem congress and senate, signed RELUCTANTLY! The repubs have taken every opportunity to gut this act ever since.

Reagan didn't want to help the homeless, he was forced to....

[/quote] So you are saying that Reagan was able to single handedly throw the mentally handicap and disabled out on the streets without the help of congress but "reluctantly" signed the Stewart B. McKinney Act? You do know that Stewart McKinney was a Repub and the chief sponsor of the Urgent Relief for the Homeless Act, don't you? It was changed to the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act before Reagan signed it into law. Pres Clinton changed it to McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act in 2000.

note:

1. The Dems controlled the House and Repubs controlled the Senate during Reagan's 8 years. So anything Reagan signed must of had bipartisan support.

2. The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act had very limited changes when Clinton signed the act in 2000 (nearly the last thing he did in office besides pardons which is another story for another day) and the numbers of homeless did not reverse while Clinton was in office.

Oct 11, 2010 12:50 pm

[quote=N.D.]

It is really getting old now but for whatever reason, I will reply yet again...

[quote=BondGuy]

....This move ballooned the homeless into a national problem. Thus the McKinney Act. Which Reagan, realizing he couldn't win a Veto agaist a dem congress and senate, signed RELUCTANTLY! The repubs have taken every opportunity to gut this act ever since.

Reagan didn't want to help the homeless, he was forced to....

[/quote] So you are saying that Reagan was able to single handedly throw the mentally handicap and disabled out on the streets without the help of congress but "reluctantly" signed the Stewart B. McKinney Act? You do know that Stewart McKinney was a Repub and the chief sponsor of the Urgent Relief for the Homeless Act, don't you? It was changed to the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act before Reagan signed it into law. Pres Clinton changed it to McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act in 2000.

note:

1. The Dems controlled the House and Repubs controlled the Senate during Reagan's 8 years. So anything Reagan signed must of had bipartisan support.

2. The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act had very limited changes when Clinton signed the act in 2000 (nearly the last thing he did in office besides pardons which is another story for another day) and the numbers of homeless did not reverse while Clinton was in office.

[/quote]

ND, I was laughing because the fact that Reagan screwed the poor and the homeless not disputed. Well, not by informed folks and certainly not by folks who lived through it. It's a sky is blue fact. yet, you are unaware.

Follow me here - Reagan comes in as a fiscal conservative who is going to curb spending. He cuts federal spending for the mentally ill forcing hospitals to close. He also cut spending to all programs that help the mentally ill. AND< YES HE COULD DO THIS WITH A PEN WITHOUT HOUSE AND SENATE APPROVAL. When the hospitals closed the patients had no where to go. Those who weren't taken by family went to the streets. Those of who lived and worked in big citiies saw the immediate effect of this move.

Likewise the 80% cut in fed housing assistance put hundreds of thousands on the streets. Homelessness became a national problem in a time of prosperity. Reagan turned a blind eye.

Reagan also fired the Air traffic Controllers without house or senate approval. But, that' another issue.

5 years later homelessness is a national issue. A repub from a liberal NE state who today would probably be labeled a RINO sponsors a bill that is labeled a first step in helping the homeless. it turned out to be the last step as well.

Early on Reagan gained congressional support for his cost cutting because he promised to reroute the money to local community programs that could do the same job for less money. ND, does this sound familiar? The result would be the same help rendered for a lot less money. Turned out to be an even better deal for Reagan when he failed to deliver on his promise. The money to local groups and programs, both advocates for the poor, and the mentally ill, never showed up. The money saved went instead to national defense.

Then the outrage started.

Go back and read those quotes, from Reagan and his daughter.

And, the real punch line is that reagan didn't cut spending. He took deficit spending to new levels ballooning the deficit to a point that when Bush came in as "Mr read my lips no new taxes" he had to raise taxes. That cost him!

Lastly, on your comment that nettlesom can support the TP while not agreeing with everything they stand for. I agree up to a point. But, you don't go to a steakhouse to order the fish. Likewise, you don't support a party who's central plank is exactly the opposite of what you believe. If the bailouts were a wedge issue for the TP, OK, I can see it. The bailouts are the only issue for the TP. Again, why would anyone who knows the truth about the bailouts support the TP? It makes no sense.

Oct 11, 2010 9:45 pm

[quote=BondGuy]

ND, I was laughing because the fact that Reagan screwed the poor and the homeless not disputed. Well, not by informed folks and certainly not by folks who lived through it. It's a sky is blue fact. yet, you are unaware.

Follow me here - Reagan comes in as a fiscal conservative who is going to curb spending. He cuts federal spending for the mentally ill forcing hospitals to close. He also cut spending to all programs that help the mentally ill. AND< YES HE COULD DO THIS WITH A PEN WITHOUT HOUSE AND SENATE APPROVAL. When the hospitals closed the patients had no where to go. Those who weren't taken by family went to the streets. Those of who lived and worked in big citiies saw the immediate effect of this move.

Likewise the 80% cut in fed housing assistance put hundreds of thousands on the streets. Homelessness became a national problem in a time of prosperity. Reagan turned a blind eye.

Reagan also fired the Air traffic Controllers without house or senate approval. But, that' another issue.

5 years later homelessness is a national issue. A repub from a liberal NE state who today would probably be labeled a RINO sponsors a bill that is labeled a first step in helping the homeless. it turned out to be the last step as well.

Early on Reagan gained congressional support for his cost cutting because he promised to reroute the money to local community programs that could do the same job for less money. ND, does this sound familiar? The result would be the same help rendered for a lot less money. Turned out to be an even better deal for Reagan when he failed to deliver on his promise. The money to local groups and programs, both advocates for the poor, and the mentally ill, never showed up. The money saved went instead to national defense.

Then the outrage started.

Go back and read those quotes, from Reagan and his daughter.

And, the real punch line is that reagan didn't cut spending. He took deficit spending to new levels ballooning the deficit to a point that when Bush came in as "Mr read my lips no new taxes" he had to raise taxes. That cost him!

Lastly, on your comment that nettlesom can support the TP while not agreeing with everything they stand for. I agree up to a point. But, you don't go to a steakhouse to order the fish. Likewise, you don't support a party who's central plank is exactly the opposite of what you believe. If the bailouts were a wedge issue for the TP, OK, I can see it. The bailouts are the only issue for the TP. Again, why would anyone who knows the truth about the bailouts support the TP? It makes no sense.

[/quote]

Honestly I do not even want to shoot holes in your posts anymore. I try again and again to back my statements up with facts and/or sources so my statements can be verified and debated. You continually state your opinions, lame assumptions and ridiculous accusations. If you would like to provide rebuttals to my posts, try citing sources and/or references to your statements. Otherwise just shut the fukc up and let this thread die...

Oct 12, 2010 3:05 am

The pissing back and forth is getting tiresome, but I need to clarify one article of fact:

BondGuy is 100% correct in saying that the President (in this case Reagan) has absolute near control over WHETHER and WHEN money is spent. In fact, that is the very definition of the EXECUTIVE branch. It executes upon the laws enacted by Congress. So while the President absolutely cannot spend money Congress has not approved (one reason why Iran-Contra was a big deal BTW), he absolutely 100% CAN WITHHOLD spending of money approved by Congress. It's not often done, because in large doses it's tantamount to declaring war on the legislative branch, but it has been done, more often by Reagan than any other President.

So ND, there is a "fact" of yours refuted.

BTW, you say BondGuy just spews opinions and not facts. I agree with you that some of what he writes can be explained as subjective bias, but respectfully disagree with you that he does so more than most on this forum. And I cannot be respectful of you completely condoning Nettlesome for being the biggest spewer of faux (FOX?) facts, idealogy and loony conspiracy theories. Your unwillingness to call him out when he agrees with you forces me to conclude that you merely feign objectivity.

Lastly, when BondGuy has used facts, you have usually failed to lay a glove on him, and merely introduced numerous faux facts of your own, like the one above. You are better than Nettlesome, if only because you can string a coherent thought together, but you're no BondGuy, whether I occasionally agree with you or not.

Oct 12, 2010 4:22 am

[quote=loneMADman]

The pissing back and forth is getting tiresome, but I need to clarify one article of fact:

BondGuy is 100% correct in saying that the President (in this case Reagan) has absolute near control over WHETHER and WHEN money is spent. In fact, that is the very definition of the EXECUTIVE branch. It executes upon the laws enacted by Congress. So while the President absolutely cannot spend money Congress has not approved (one reason why Iran-Contra was a big deal BTW), he absolutely 100% CAN WITHHOLD spending of money approved by Congress. It's not often done, because in large doses it's tantamount to declaring war on the legislative branch, but it has been done, more often by Reagan than any other President.

So ND, there is a "fact" of yours refuted.

[/quote]

Nowhere in your rambling does it point to a source or reference to "refute" my fact. You guys really are so drunk on the lib spin that you believe that since you read it somewhere on a blog it must be true??? I know the "powers" a prez is given. duh What I did not see in either of your posts is a reputable (or any for that fact) source that shows:

1. Republicans stick it to the poor.

2. Reagan threw mentally ill people in the streets thus creating a homelessness epidemic.

The homeless problem actually started before Reagan took office and escalated during his term but it was not because he "threw" the mentally ill and disabled into the streets. To blame one man for these things or even a single political party, is absolutely absurd. Especially during a true bipartisan congress as we had in the 80s.

The mentally ill and disabled issues began in the late 60s as the first of the baby boomers began to enter society as young adults. The deinstitutanalzation movement also escalated the number of homeless people by not allowing people to be institutionalized against their will which is a good thing IMO.

You can blame many people for the unfortunate results of several pieces of legislation but for BG to attempt to use his opinion as facts to single out the individual or individuals that are directly responsible for this concern is ABSURD.

[quote=loneMADman]

BTW, you say BondGuy just spews opinions and not facts. I agree with you that some of what he writes can be explained as subjective bias, but respectfully disagree with you that he does so more than most on this forum. And I cannot be respectful of you completely condoning Nettlesome for being the biggest spewer of faux (FOX?) facts, idealogy and loony conspiracy theories. Your unwillingness to call him out when he agrees with you forces me to conclude that you merely feign objectivity.

Lastly, when BondGuy has used facts, you have usually failed to lay a glove on him, and merely introduced numerous faux facts of your own, like the one above. You are better than Nettlesome, if only because you can string a coherent thought together, but you're no BondGuy, whether I occasionally agree with you or not.

[/quote] I would be glad to start over with an accusation from BondGuy and a fact or source or reference to support his facts. Unless he would like to change his facts and say it is his opinion the Gipper launched the poor, mentally ill and disabled out on the streets because he is opposed to these demographics.

If you feel that I have "introduced numerous faux facts" please point them out so I can cite my source of reference or restate the post as my opinion.

Oct 12, 2010 1:06 pm

ND, either you don't know the powers a president is granted or you are incapable of admitting you were wrong about even one specific fact. Why would I take the time to point out others when you are obviously irredeemable?

By the way, BondGuy and I are not the same person and I didn't write what he did. You could be a little more discerning in your wild attacks, but making fine distinctions clearly isn't your thing.

Oct 12, 2010 3:43 pm

God bless you Ronnie. Forgive them.

Ronnie cut marginal tax rates from 70% in 1979. And started a monster economic run that HELPED EVERYONE (duh). Please repeat this 100 time Bond et al. IT HELPS EVERYONE.

THE ANSWER IS A MAN WITH A mf JOB not govt bullshti that NEVER works.

free markets create wealth. greed creates wealth. that lifts EVERYONE.

cut taxes, cut regulation. supply side, voodoo, trickle down economics WORKS

period

everytime (including 2002)

Ronnie HELPED the poor more then any president in my lifetime by a mile.

A MAN WITH A JOB IS THE ANSWER.

NOT A MAN WITH YOUR BULLSHTI HANDOUT GIVEAWAY WEALTH DISTRIBUTION COMRADE PUTIN CRAP

The supply siders highlighted the positive evidence from two earlier major tax cuts—the Coolidge-Mellon cuts of the 1920s and the Kennedy tax cut of the 1960s. Between 1921 and 1926, three major tax cuts reduced the top marginal rate from 73 percent to 25 percent. The Kennedy tax cut reduced rates across the board, and the top marginal rate was sliced from 91 percent to 70 percent. Both of these tax cuts were followed by strong growth and increasing prosperity. In contrast, the huge Hoover tax increase of 1932—the top rate was increased from 25 percent to 63 percent in one year—helped keep the economy depressed. As the economy grew slowly in the 1970s and the unemployment rate rose, supply-side economists argued that these conditions were the result of high tax rates due to high inflation.

The supply-side economic policy of cutting high marginal tax rates, therefore, should be viewed as a long-run strategy to enhance growth rather than a short-run tool to end recession. Changing market incentives to increase the amount of labor supplied or to move resources out of tax-motivated investments and into higher-yield activities takes time. The full positive effects of lower marginal tax rates are not observed until labor and capital markets have time to adjust fully to the new incentive structure.

Because marginal tax rates affect real output, they also affect government revenue. An increase in marginal tax rates shrinks the tax base, both by discouraging work effort and by encouraging tax avoidance and even tax evasion. This shrinkage necessarily means that an increase in tax rates leads to a less than proportional increase in tax revenues. Indeed, economist Arthur Laffer (of “Laffer curve” fame) popularized the notion that higher tax rates may actually cause the tax base to shrink so much that tax revenues will decline, and that a cut in tax rates may increase the tax base so much that tax revenues increase.

How likely is this inverse relationship between tax rates and tax revenues? It is more likely in the long run when people have had a long time to adjust. It is also more likely when marginal tax rates are high, but less likely when rates are low. Imagine a taxpayer in a 75 percent tax bracket who earns $300,000 a year. Assume for simplicity that the 75 percent tax rate applies to all his income. Then the government collects $225,000 in tax revenue from this person. Now the government cuts tax rates by one-third, from 75 percent to 50 percent. After the tax cut, this taxpayer gets to keep $50, rather than $25, of every $100, a 100 percent increase in the incentive to earn. If this doubling of the incentive to earn causes him to earn 50 percent more, or $450,000, then the government will get the same revenue as before. If it causes him to earn more than $450,000, the government gets more revenue.

Now consider a taxpayer paying a tax rate of 15 percent on all his income. The same 33 percent rate reduction cuts his rate from 15 percent to 10 percent. Here, take-home pay per $100 of additional earnings will rise from $85 to $90, only a 5.9 percent increase in the incentive to earn. Because cutting the 15 percent rate to 10 percent exerts only a small effect on the incentive to earn, the rate reduction has little impact on the amount earned. Therefore, in contrast with the revenue effects in high tax brackets, tax revenue will decline by almost the same percentage as tax rates in the lowest tax brackets. The bottom line is that cutting all rates by a third will lead to small revenue losses (or even revenue gains) in high tax brackets and large revenue losses in the lowest brackets. As a result, the share of the income tax paid by high-income taxpayers will rise.

Supply-side economics has exerted a major impact on tax policy throughout the world. During the last two decades of the twentieth century, there was a dramatic move away from high marginal tax rates. In 1980, the top marginal rate on personal income was 60 percent or more in forty-nine countries. By 1990, only twenty countries had such a high top tax rate, and by 2000, only three countries—Cameroon, Belgium, and the Democratic Republic of Congo—had a top rate of 60 percent or more. In 1980, only six countries levied a personal income tax with a top marginal rate of less than 40 percent. By 2000, fifty-six countries had a top marginal income tax rate of less than 40 percent.1

The former socialist economies have been at the forefront of those moving toward supply-side tax policies. Following the collapse of communism, most of these countries had a combination of personal income and payroll taxes that generated high marginal tax rates. As a result, the incentive to work was weak and tax evasion was massive. Russia was a typical case. In 2000, Russia’s top personal income tax rate was 30 percent and a 40.5 percent payroll tax was applied at all earnings levels. If Russians with even modest earnings complied with the law, the tax collector took well over half of their incremental income. Beginning in January 2001, the newly elected Putin administration shifted to a 13 percent flat-rate income tax and also sharply reduced the payroll tax rate. The results were striking. Tax compliance increased and the inflation-adjusted revenues from the personal income tax rose more than 20 percent annually during the three years following the adoption of the flat-rate tax. Further, the real growth rate of the Russian economy averaged 7 percent during 2001–2003, up from less than 2 percent during the three years prior to the tax cut.

Ukraine soon followed Russia’s lead and capped its top personal income tax rate at 13 percent. Beginning in 2004, the Slovak Republic imposed a flat-rate personal income tax of 19 percent. Latvia and Estonia also have flat-rate personal income taxes.

Supply-side economics provided the political and theoretical foundations for what became a remarkable change in the tax structure of the United States and other countries throughout the world. The view that changes in tax rates exert an impact on total output and that marginal rates in excess of 40 percent exert a destructive influence on the incentive of people to work and use resources wisely is now widely accepted by both economists and policymakers. This change in thinking is the major legacy of supply-side economics.

Oct 12, 2010 5:00 pm

Nettlesome - question: Is the TP, of which you are a card carrying member, not screaming stop the spending?

I get emails everyday from TP supporters asking how their grandchildren are gonna pay for all this out of control spending. The bailouts are the poster child for this irresponsible loading on of debt.

I ask, because you've supplied the group, the three of us still reading this thread, with Reagan's economic policy.

Did you know that Ronnie's tax cuts, combined with his own out of control spending tripled the national debt. And, I'll bet you didn't know that under Reagan the United States went from the world's largest creditor nation to it's largest debtor nation.

Yeah, that's what happens when you borrow money to pay the bills.

And, here we go again, the TP in the face of a mountainous national debt, rung up by two wars, wants taxs cuts again!

Did you know that Bush referred to Ronnies' economic plan as "Voodoo economics?

Yeah, we, the wealthy, prospered under Ronnie. But we were writing checks we couldn't cash.

Oct 12, 2010 6:02 pm

ND, in going back and forth with you here I'm reminded of Strother Martin's famous line from 'Cool Hand Luke.' I know you're thinking:

"What we have here is failure to communitcate."

But that's not the line I believe best applies.

That would be the Captain's next line:

"Some men you just can't reach."

Dman, thx for the reasoning. I too have tired of the pissing contest. I'll answer lovin on a couple points and then call it pissed out.

'

Oct 12, 2010 6:21 pm

[quote=lovindaindy]

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=lovindaindy]

Bondguy - I'm sorry we disagree too. Except that I'm right.

When you capture someone and they specifically tell you that they came from Syria or Iran or Palestine because they knew going to Iraq they could "kill Americans", and that is the consensus for ALL of the people you capture on raids, it's called statistically significant.

Western Europe and the rest of the world has shown their weakness. Bending knee to radicalism thinking that they won't, with the sweep of a sword, cut your head off.

This is one of those situations, that, unless you have been there (actually on the ground running missions - NOT in the TOC or back at the FOB like a good little Fobbit), you CAN'T know what you are talking about.

Not to mention, that when I wasn't running missions I was helping the Iraqi people. You aren't going to make Iraq a democracy overnight. They are not going to be able to sustain their own military overnight. It takes a LOT of time.

Further, the Iraq War as people try to call it, is actually the Persian Gulf War. It was a resumption of hostilities. Bush didn't need an excuse. He didn't START that war. HIs father did. The problem was that, as much as I love Clinton, he didn't have the balls to attack after Saddam REPEATEDLY violated the cease-fire agreement.

So basically, Bush did his job. I am proud to have served in that conflict. The good done FAR outweighs any perceptions that people here got from watching the news.

[/quote]

So were on the same page, my perceptions aren't media based.

Your argument that you had to be there to know what your talking about is far off base. Do i know what it's like to shoot someone in war? No! But i don't have to know that to know that the Vietnam war was a failure. Iraq is no different.

The latest casualty count for Iraq that i can find is 4424 American service men and woman dead. Over 31,000 wounded. If you have different numbers, by all means please share it.

That being the cost, question: What did we gain in exchange?

[/quote]

We gained several things:

1) Battle-hardened veterans who can lead our soldiers in tomorrow's wars.

2) Removal of a genocidal maniac

3) An ally

4) I don't know about others, but my squad alone captured or killed over 50 terrorists from various countries.

5) A foothold in the Middle east (although that's gone now, and that IS thanks to Obama)

6) Professional military relationships between individual officers and NCOs on both sides

7) Good will of the MAJORITY of Iraqi people.

8) Integration among schools in Iraq.

9) A generation of Iraqis who "get it".

I could go on.

Not to marginalize the deaths (I have a family member among them, buried in Arlington), but the percentage of deaths pursuant to these two wars is not statistically significantly different from those killed in training accidents. And guess what? Training accidents dropped SIGNIFICANTLY during these wars. What does this tell you? Training works! Same goes for injuries.

Iraq IS different. Significantly different. Those who served in both wars can tell you. I'm not old enough.

As for your breast cancer friend, I'm sorry.

But I certainly don't think that it is my responsibility to pay her medical bills. Health care isn't a right. Just like retirement isn't a right. We tried to say home ownership was a right, but look where that got us. College is a right now apparently, and guess where that's leading?

[/quote]

Lov i let the political shot you took at Clinton pass. But you've clearly got a political agenda in your support of the war. None of what you've posted rises to the level of being worth American blood.

Peace in iraq is fragile at best. A paper army led by a puppet government. Not why we went to war! And, defianately not worth the life of your brothers, my sons, my grandchildrens parents. Not in my lifetime, not in your lifetime.

Attacking Iraq was misguided, followed by prosecution that could only in the kindest terms be called a debacle.

Not one nation in the middle east is lining up and saying "Oh please great Americans, please do for us what you did for Iraq." Yet, one of the misguided policy goals that is unfulfilled.

Not to mention the three trillion dollar price tag! All borrowed money!

Yet, you, like all conservatives don't want taxes to increase. You point to the dems as out of control spenders while turning a blind eye to the debt that your repubs rang up in war debt. Well, payment is due!!!

You say you don't want health care for everyone? Too much money,eh? The health care bill will cost 940 billion over 10 years. So, Ok to spend 3 trillion to kill people in another land, but not OK to spend less than 1 trillion to help your countrymen? That sums it up?

Oct 12, 2010 8:26 pm

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=lovindaindy]

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=lovindaindy]

Bondguy - I'm sorry we disagree too. Except that I'm right.

When you capture someone and they specifically tell you that they came from Syria or Iran or Palestine because they knew going to Iraq they could "kill Americans", and that is the consensus for ALL of the people you capture on raids, it's called statistically significant.

Western Europe and the rest of the world has shown their weakness. Bending knee to radicalism thinking that they won't, with the sweep of a sword, cut your head off.

This is one of those situations, that, unless you have been there (actually on the ground running missions - NOT in the TOC or back at the FOB like a good little Fobbit), you CAN'T know what you are talking about.

Not to mention, that when I wasn't running missions I was helping the Iraqi people. You aren't going to make Iraq a democracy overnight. They are not going to be able to sustain their own military overnight. It takes a LOT of time.

Further, the Iraq War as people try to call it, is actually the Persian Gulf War. It was a resumption of hostilities. Bush didn't need an excuse. He didn't START that war. HIs father did. The problem was that, as much as I love Clinton, he didn't have the balls to attack after Saddam REPEATEDLY violated the cease-fire agreement.

So basically, Bush did his job. I am proud to have served in that conflict. The good done FAR outweighs any perceptions that people here got from watching the news.

[/quote]

So were on the same page, my perceptions aren't media based.

Your argument that you had to be there to know what your talking about is far off base. Do i know what it's like to shoot someone in war? No! But i don't have to know that to know that the Vietnam war was a failure. Iraq is no different.

The latest casualty count for Iraq that i can find is 4424 American service men and woman dead. Over 31,000 wounded. If you have different numbers, by all means please share it.

That being the cost, question: What did we gain in exchange?

[/quote]

We gained several things:

1) Battle-hardened veterans who can lead our soldiers in tomorrow's wars.

2) Removal of a genocidal maniac

3) An ally

4) I don't know about others, but my squad alone captured or killed over 50 terrorists from various countries.

5) A foothold in the Middle east (although that's gone now, and that IS thanks to Obama)

6) Professional military relationships between individual officers and NCOs on both sides

7) Good will of the MAJORITY of Iraqi people.

8) Integration among schools in Iraq.

9) A generation of Iraqis who "get it".

I could go on.

Not to marginalize the deaths (I have a family member among them, buried in Arlington), but the percentage of deaths pursuant to these two wars is not statistically significantly different from those killed in training accidents. And guess what? Training accidents dropped SIGNIFICANTLY during these wars. What does this tell you? Training works! Same goes for injuries.

Iraq IS different. Significantly different. Those who served in both wars can tell you. I'm not old enough.

As for your breast cancer friend, I'm sorry.

But I certainly don't think that it is my responsibility to pay her medical bills. Health care isn't a right. Just like retirement isn't a right. We tried to say home ownership was a right, but look where that got us. College is a right now apparently, and guess where that's leading?

[/quote]

Lov i let the political shot you took at Clinton pass. But you've clearly got a political agenda in your support of the war. None of what you've posted rises to the level of being worth American blood.

Peace in iraq is fragile at best. A paper army led by a puppet government. Not why we went to war! And, defianately not worth the life of your brothers, my sons, my grandchildrens parents. Not in my lifetime, not in your lifetime.

Attacking Iraq was misguided, followed by prosecution that could only in the kindest terms be called a debacle.

Not one nation in the middle east is lining up and saying "Oh please great Americans, please do for us what you did for Iraq." Yet, one of the misguided policy goals that is unfulfilled.

Not to mention the three trillion dollar price tag! All borrowed money!

Yet, you, like all conservatives don't want taxes to increase. You point to the dems as out of control spenders while turning a blind eye to the debt that your repubs rang up in war debt. Well, payment is due!!!

You say you don't want health care for everyone? Too much money,eh? The health care bill will cost 940 billion over 10 years. So, Ok to spend 3 trillion to kill people in another land, but not OK to spend less than 1 trillion to help your countrymen? That sums it up?

[/quote]

Actually, I don't have a problem with taxes. As long as they are fair. Sometimes taxes need to be raised. Just like I don't think government spending is all that bad. Government spending has a multiplicative effect on output. However, only certain government spending has that effect. For instance. Military spending has the largest impact PER DOLLAR, than any other program as far as stimulating the economy.

Also, how can you say what a bill WILL cost, when ten years haven't passed? The forecasts on that bill are flawed, and were done by people bought and paid for by the Democratic party.

Healthcare is not a public good. Not EVERYONE benefits from this healthcare. A military IS a public good. EVERYBODY benefits from having a military. Therefore, taxes should not go to pay for something that is NOT a public good.

So, BG, what IS a good reason to spill American blood? Would you consider training for war a good reason? I only ask because the profession of arms is incredibly dangerous. In peacetime and wartime. If a soldier dies in training, was it wasteful to spend money on his training? If a pilot crashes a plane while training, should we disband the Air Force, since flying planes is too dangerous.

As I said, the statistics speak for themselves. During the previous ten years under Clinton, the EXACT percentage of soldiers died in TRAINING as have died in the last ten years of war. What does that tell you?

The Iraqi Army, police and National Guard have come a LONG way from when I was there. Several of my buddies who just got back last year said the only thing separating us now from them in fighting ability, is technology, and practice. They have the skills.

Attacking Iraq was so far from misguided it is not even funny. From PERSONAL experience I can tell you about the people we captured. How they changed plans from attacking DoD schools in Germany, to attacking American soldiers because we were "the face of the crusaders". Countless stories like this. The Egyptian brothers (lol, the Feddyi brothers!) who originally had planned to bomb a school in Ohio. This, translated from one of their journals, complete with a drawing of cutting off a child's head. Yet, the Americans were here, why not kill them here?

You tell me BG. Is your life, given in blood, to save the life of a 5 year-old American girl in Germany, worth it? Is it worth it, to save

Mine is. I would do it every time.

These are the stories you don't hear. You don't hear them from Fox. You don't hear from MSNBC. You don't hear them from CNN, or CBS.

I feel sorry for you if you don't think children are worth it. But I will live the rest of my life knowing what I fought for, and what my brother died for. And I know the truth. Not the lies of the left, nor the exaggerations of the right.

Oct 13, 2010 12:54 am